[Jiro]

Which is true here, except "do anything you want" is "be displeasing to Kuwait".

It's all "they're a private company, they can ban anyone they want" right up until they ban someone who promoters of that idea don't like. Then they're suddenly horrible people for being a private company that bans anyone they want.

[8note]

if they are doing business in kuwait, theyre gonna be reponsible to kuwaiti law.

> Then they're suddenly horrible people for being a private company that bans anyone they want.

with twitter, people did exactly what is intended - if you dont like it, make your own. now there is truth social and blue sky and threads.

people say twitter is run by horrible people, but nobody is restricting musk's rights to have a vanity project. its a right to speech, not to be liked

[mystraline]

> It's all "they're a private company, they can ban anyone they want" right up until they ban someone who promoters of that idea don't like. Then they're suddenly horrible people for being a private company that bans anyone they want.

If they are NOT acting as an impartial aggregator and only censoring/deleting when the law demands, then they should NOT be covered under Section 230.

Thats quite simple.

[tadfisher]

This is either an "ought to be* statement or it is a deliberate misreading of section 230 and case law. Representatives have proposed enacting this, many times, but platform neutrality is not a requirement under current law.

[8note]

i dont see why the government needs to be so prescriptive about how companies run?

the current law allows for impartial and biased/focused platforms to exist, so customers can access a variety of platforms and discussion fora.

in your proposal, something like banjo hangout couldnt exist as a platform focused on banjo picking, frailing, and building, because posts debating sailing vs rowing arent allowed