Florida Law Violates First Amendment?
302,437
Reddit
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Extended \u0026 ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! legaleagle.link/extras
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse

SOCIAL MEDIA \u0026 DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent \u0026 manager at legaleagle@standard.tv

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me ( pxle.me/eagle )

نظر
  • hardlyhuman7
    hardlyhuman7

    If the platforms can moderate and censor whatever they want, they shouldn't have the privileges of a free platform or whichever technical term describes this

  • Alex Hauptli
    Alex Hauptli

    Maybe some social media companies will become "common carriers" in the future (like how telephone services can't moderate phone calls)? Just a thought.

  • Colby Cameron
    Colby Cameron

    I hope someday you understand the truth. Till then you're fighting for the wrong side. May you find happiness in your life despite the weight of the world around you

  • Lovely.
    Lovely.

    Ah dont you just love it when your state when it does things like this :D

  • Nikhil More
    Nikhil More

    Wasn't the Christian Bakery a Private Company? 🙄

  • Officer Swanson
    Officer Swanson

    Yes but what about other people's freedom of speech

    • It is good day to be not dead.
      It is good day to be not dead.

      private company, they can decide their own rules, and what do you mean other peoples?

  • Jake Pruetting
    Jake Pruetting

    So dems care about the constitution....now??? Lol.

  • Spartan_1 Da Beast
    Spartan_1 Da Beast

    Ah, so businesses should have freedom to do what they'd like now? How do you feel about false advertisement? Should that also be protected by the first amendment? There is a point where the exercising of your rights will hurt people, and while you are still free to do these things, you will not be free from the consequences.

  • The truth Hurts
    The truth Hurts

    Section 230 doesn’t protect publishers . Thats what google, youtube, and twitter have been practicing . If they are supposed to be non partisan platforms then they aren’t allowed to sensor opposing political views as they have been doing since 2016 . So this lawyer is wrong and needs to do some research . Platforms aren’t publishers.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      ​@The truth Hurts Section 230 does the *exact opposite* of what you think it does, you literally could not possibly be more wrong about it. It says that no website is ever treated as the "publisher" of the speech of any of its users, it essentially abolished the platform v publisher distinction. The whole point was the allow sites to moderate their content without opening themselves up to litigation. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @The truth Hurts Actually, it does. LE literally explained this in the video. No it doesn't lol. What it says is such platforms are not considered publishers to begin with. Aaaaaand now you're just mindlessly regurgitating Republican propoganda.

    • The truth Hurts
      The truth Hurts

      @Stephen2462 actually it doesn’t. It clearly states that as long as they perform as a platform and not publishers , they are covered. They only reason they are getting away with it is because democrats control the entire government. And these platforms are liberal run entities which promote democrat views and silence conservative views. When the republicans regain the house, changes will be made. 230 is connected to illegal voting , also connected to illegal border crossings . Which former vice pres biden is doing nothing about.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      But it DOES allow them to moderate their own platforms, which is what they're actually doing. They haven't been, Republicans are just claiming that they are.

  • Lola Sonner
    Lola Sonner

    Ah but what about if this happens in another country ?

  • Milkyyy
    Milkyyy

    It’s first amendment right only when they agree with my political ideals 😠

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @Milkyyy Nowhere near as often, nor so they make as much noise about it when it does happen. Unfortunately Trump normalized such rude, entitled behavior amongst much of his base.

    • Milkyyy
      Milkyyy

      @Stephen2462 But democrats don’t do the same thing? Funny

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @Milkyyy Nope. As far as I can tell, the politicos that were kicked off of social media were breaking the terms of service. In short, they were being assholes; threatening violence, spreading blatant misinformation, that sort of thing.

    • Milkyyy
      Milkyyy

      @Stephen2462 I mean the democrats tend to be very bias and will literally silence you for having a separate political opinion

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Indeed, that DOES seem to be the prevailing attitude amongst Republicans. Partially because many of them have little understanding of what the First Amendment does.

  • Zac
    Zac

    Social media has become a public utility and those laws governing said public utility need to be redrafted. It's no longer private

  • Jean Cuna
    Jean Cuna

    No way this guy uses WeVideo

  • steven fredette
    steven fredette

    So they have a right to violate others freedom of speech when they using the same card to protect themselves but remove our content. It's like saying no bodies ideas are original or self owned because we didn't make our own paper or pencil? Facebook was just stolen work from MySpace or xanaga, etc.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee anyone a platform. And it certainly doesn't protect anyone from social consequences, like being kicked off a platform.

  • Spahi77
    Spahi77

    Social media should have taken a neutral stance on their content ....the second they did...screwed up alot

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      They have for the most part. Unfortunately, Conservatives arn't content with that.

  • Kamo
    Kamo

    Free speech is not free speech when someone or anyone is able to police that. Noone should be policing what people can or cannot say. Whether is it n word or calling someone a carrot top

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Even the first amendment has restrictions, most famously the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" example. Also, moderating social media content does not conflict with the first amendment to begin with.

  • Ng Bb
    Ng Bb

    The first amendment would apply to these companies if they were not monopolies, centralizing information for a politicly partisan agenda

  • Dan Markling
    Dan Markling

    Hey it’s that guy that isn’t Ryan Reynolds!!

  • Tee Wayne
    Tee Wayne

    Their section 230 will never override the constitution...

    • Tee Wayne
      Tee Wayne

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer Well that might be true but when you only stifle certain political people and then you allow other people to say whatever they wish. Then it becomes a weapon instead of a place for free speech. Case in point Candice Owen's versus Facebook. And she won her lawsuit...Fact check the fact checkers...

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      The 1st amendment of the constitution gives sites the right to remove user content and ban people. Section 230 means that no site is considered to be the "publisher" of its users speech, meaning they can't be sued for it.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Indeed, it doesn't.

  • Joseph Shmoesinsky
    Joseph Shmoesinsky

    Well, not until you steal an election and force your chosen cadidate through by reminding nobodies to vote. You sir, please step off the stage. Coca Cola or Manscaping won't pay you.

  • Clayton Talesfore
    Clayton Talesfore

    As far as the legislation in question is concerned, I feel like it is reasonable to allow politicians to have access to the town square. As social media is as prevalent as it is, it is an injustice to remove a candidate purely due to their political affiliation. Imagine a politician trying to run adds that was just barred from doing so.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Social media platforms arn't a town square, they're owned and maintained by a company. A better comparison would be to a popular bar. The number of frequent patrons has no bearing on the fact they reserve the right to kick out assholes. I'm fairly confident those guys wern't kicked out due to their political affiliation, at least not directly.

  • Mathew nunya
    Mathew nunya

    But if the social media sites moderate the content on their sites, specifically banning those with conservative or republican views, then they are not "platforms", they are publishers and therefore should not be able to hide behind 230 protections.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @Mathew nunya Editorializing is something else lol, this is called "moderating", and they have every right to do so. It's not the platform's fault if a lot of right-wing politicos are being assholes, breaking the terms of service.

    • Mathew nunya
      Mathew nunya

      @Polad Hasanov by editorializing what is or is not allowed they act like publishers all the while calling themselves platforms and hiding behind 230. Imagine a company claiming they are non profit and demanding to be treated as such while they are actively taking in profits. They say they are platforms then edit what is or is not allowed, the majority of which is banned being conservative, republican or right leaning.

    • Polad Hasanov
      Polad Hasanov

      They are not publishing anything tho, the publisher is the user

  • Neil McMahon
    Neil McMahon

    Twitter is a hypocritical lib run nightmare

  • Joshua Baker
    Joshua Baker

    The problem I have these private companies have gotten so big they influence a lot of the world especially politics which is you know quite scary to think about

  • GABA DABA
    GABA DABA

    But what if what they're doing violates other laws or their terms of service? Its one thing if they say that people with specific viewpoints will be banned, but its another if they don't say that and ban people anyway. Would let banning people violate their first amendment rights? After all, section 230 states that these companies can't be held responsible (for the most part) for anything said on their platform.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Almost every website has in its ToS that they can remove any post or ban any user at any time and for any reason. And no, of course your 1st amendment rights aren't being violated when a website bans your account, that's stupid.

  • Dakota Oneill
    Dakota Oneill

    Dude you're a commie

  • Pazzla Solem
    Pazzla Solem

    Freedom of speech to ALL !!! Not to a SELECTED FEW…if only the SOCIAL PLATFORMS WOULD STOP BEEN BIAS!!

  • julon krutor
    julon krutor

    Hi , a German here: If I understood the US system correctly you can eighter moderate your users and pay higher taxes or don't and pay lower. Yet they do moderate and pay low taxes. How dose that work?

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @julon krutor The site is open to the public, in the sense that just about anyone with an internet connection can get on and make an account. But it is still owned and maintained by a company, not the government. Being freely accessible is just part of their business model.

    • julon krutor
      julon krutor

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer 1st. Thx for clearing this up. 2. I got this because they said, they are public forums (or something like that) and that reduced there taxes. ... I that is wrong - well, i learned something ^^

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      You don't understand the US system correctly. There's absolutely nothing in there about paying higher taxes if your moderate your content, I have no idea what gave you that idea.

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      Idk all you gotta know about the us is corruption is legal

  • Steven Miller
    Steven Miller

    Good boy. How do sheep sound? They go bbbaaaaaaaa... That's right!

  • THE Sillver Pocket Watch
    THE Sillver Pocket Watch

    Hey you put rugby in the video 👍

  • Tamas Marcuis
    Tamas Marcuis

    I heard a comparison that made this clear. IRbin etc are like theatres. You can't tell a theatre what it can and can not allow to play on it's own stage. You can't demand a movie theatre screen your home movies. You can't demand a newspaper print your letters. All social media is like TV stations, newspapers, private bill boards and theatres. The only difference is they don't generally charge people but technically they can. Fundamentally they are not public services. They let you use their facilities for free so they can sell you information and access to you eyes and ears.

  • b p
    b p

    Legal eagle is a partisan hack

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Lolnope

  • Tom Paul
    Tom Paul

    If they aren't publishers and then are acting as the town hall so to speak, wouldnt users then have the expectation that their first amendment rights are to be protected?

    • Tom Paul
      Tom Paul

      @Stephen2462 can you name any of the people that have been censored?

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @Tom Paul Then you're wrong. The First Amendment only restricts the government from passing laws that restrict free speech. It doesn't apply to private it companies to begin with, let alone force any of them to guarantee citizens a platform. THAT would be a first amendment violation, as LE explained in this video. Not a town hall, a town hall would be public property, owned by the government. It would be more accurate to compare it to a popular bar. The number of people inside has no bearing on the fact it's still owned and maintained by a company. Further extending the metaphor, these far-right politicos complaining about being "censored" are drunks complaining that the bouncers threw them out after making a scene.

    • Tom Paul
      Tom Paul

      @Stephen2462 with respect I wholeheartedly disagree the First Amendment guarantees from government your right to free speech. That being said these social media platform are acting as the town hall then your right to free speech should be as secure using these platforms Townhall yourself and made your voice heard. While they are private entities, in the modern world, the fastest way to reach people is via social media and the internet. If half of the voices are silenced due to platforms censoring what can and cannot be discussed then you are in essence ensuring that there is only one line of thinking, and that as history shows, is absolutely dangerous to everyone.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Not really. Just because they're popular doesn't mean they're not allowed to moderate content. And no, the first amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a platform to begin with.

  • Tom Paul
    Tom Paul

    So then are you saying that these platforms are then in actuality publishers? Because then that opens them up to other issues doesnt it?

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      No it doesn't. Section 230 states that no website is considered the publisher of anything any of its users post, regardless of whether it moderates its content. A lot of people seem to think that 230 does the exact opposite of what it really does and that it created the platform vs publisher distinction, when in fact it abolished that distinction.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @Tom Paul In short, you want to take away these social media platform's right to moderate their own content. Considering that unmoderated platforms, without exception, turn into hellholes, that's a terrible idea. Yes, and as the law currently stands, they have every right to do that. Not just social media companies, but news outlets and search engines too. Though as far as I can tell, this is just a handful of right-wing politicos that acted out and are upset about being held accountable for it.

    • Tom Paul
      Tom Paul

      @Stephen2462 you have to keep in mind that if you regulate what people can and cannot see you are controlling the narrative of those users.

    • Tom Paul
      Tom Paul

      @Stephen2462 then the issue is if they are willing to censor information, who approves what is acceptable to be seen and what's not? How do they make that decision? What if they target specific groups of people and regulate what is allowed to be seen from those groups?

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      No he's saying there's already laws on the books that specify they are not legally responsible for user's content, but they are allowed to moderate it.

  • spencer wells
    spencer wells

    This guy seems very.... for the control of political opponents voices.

    • Zeldagigafan
      Zeldagigafan

      Rules are best when EVERYONE is held to the same standard. From the homeless guy on the street to the president.

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      Obviously, hes a city boy the man has probably never gotten his hands dirty

  • Rod Ritchie
    Rod Ritchie

    Yeah, but these platforms seem to be bias towards certain political beliefs

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      @callmeacutekitten And both of them were known for utterly ignoring the TOS. I remember them making a point that the only reason Trump hadn't been banned much earlier was because he was President, that's why they kicked him off as soon as he left the White House.

    • Rod Ritchie
      Rod Ritchie

      @Stephen2462 well, they certainly don't seem to like black conservatives

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      @Stephen2462 they literally banned trump and alex John's but not some Twitter blue checkmarked mf saying more abhorrent shit expressly vaush

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Not really.

  • SP1KE
    SP1KE

    Then again don’t the people have the first amendment to say what they want?

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Mhm. No. They have first amendment to forbid their government to pass a law limiting their ability to say what they want. Do you see the difference?

  • Aaron Small
    Aaron Small

    But them censoring people is also a violation of the first amendment....my brain hurts

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      No, it's not. For different reasons. 1. First Amendment is not applicable to private enterprises. It's explicitly limiting government to pass some type of laws, not declaring some thing as basic right like, let's say, Second one. And that's the only one written this way in Bill of Rights. Actually, it's the only one Amendment written this way at all. If First Amendment was implied to be applicable to every actor, not just laws of Congress, it would be written like this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 2. First Amendment actually saying that it's not possible under Constitution to proclaim some types or themes of speech felony (well, USA kinda circumverent it with pornography laws, incitement laws and some other stuff). Facebook doesn't proclaim some type of speech illegal; it does moderate its platform as it seem fit, people are free to express their view at every platform they can. Running a thematic library dedicated to hedgehogs isn't a violation of the First, even if other person can want to put a book about coconut there; and refusing to publish mildly erotical fanfiction novel in private typography because you don't want to take this contract isn't as well.

  • Anthony Rodriguez
    Anthony Rodriguez

    Republican virtue signaling is more cringe than democratic signaling 😬😬

  • Alex Milak
    Alex Milak

    One of the few things I kind of agreed with Trump on (though for different reasons)... the effective monopoly of social media platforms make them akin to somewhat of a public forum, section 230 is bad law

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      @Alex Milak They already does it. It's a reason Trump administration declared that Facebook shouldn't be considered as protected by 230, and his administration would consider it like that, because it's not "in good faith" if it's against him. Executive Order 13925. Yes, I do believe it's unlawful interpretation of "good faith". And yes, it would be nice for that idea to be defined strictly. But, sadly, it's a big point in quite a lot of law beyond Sec. 230, and you can't declare it to be a bad law just because it use a usual legal term. EDIT: Essentially, if you're arguing for making Section 230 *broader* by removing "good faith" condition, I'm up for that. The less constrictions on media, the better.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      @Alex Milak The problem is, even if traditional forums are going away, it doesn't mean government can declare private property a public forum. Or nonpublic forum, for this matter. My preferred solution: make Congress buy Facebook, make it a public-owned corporation alike Amtrak or VOA, and designate it public forum by the Act of Congress. Just compensation would be... hmm. Starting from $200 billion, I suppose (Facebook assets are $159.32 billion, and compensation for investments and projected benefits should be considered). For Twitter it's another, let's say, $15 billion. All of that can be done under the basis of eminent domain. That I fully support. I'm not a fan of big corporations; I mean, think something about socialist not-a-fan here. But revoking legal protections created to allow Internet to exist, and to protect freedom of the press against frivolous litigation and state intervention, as a punishment for lawful moderation policy we don't like isn't a way. A strange position that Facebook or Twitter is a traditional public forum just because people prefer it to discuss things right now is an invented talking point. For crying it loud, it can be sold and closed just tomorrow. It's not more public forum then private house where people of the city used to convey and speak. (And yes, the most realistic outcome of Section 230 repel would be relocation of Facebook to other country, but that's another thing.)

    • Alex Milak
      Alex Milak

      Maybe when an administration or court interprets the condition of 'good faith' in 230 to be only pro American content or some other bastardization of it, other people will see why 230 is too broad and misguided

    • Alex Milak
      Alex Milak

      Also give them just compensation, I am not advocating against that.... that or just actually enforce antitrust laws in this country that we have let become obsolete

    • Alex Milak
      Alex Milak

      @Andrey Gutiontov I am not 'right side of the aisle' but these traditional forums are going away and corporations will dictate content... like the Voltaire quote, I don't agree with the bs from Trump but things I do agree with will be limited in the same manner

  • Ransom Howard
    Ransom Howard

    We all know this guy is in big techs pocket. Just wait they will come for him too. You can never be woke enough for the liberal mob.

    • Nicholas Nicholas
      Nicholas Nicholas

      Show us your physical proof of what you just said

  • Susan Beckett
    Susan Beckett

    Politicians need to start working for the American Citizens not for their own Political gain.

  • James Rooks
    James Rooks

    This is exhibit A in my argument that Legal Eagle is a SHITTY lawyer!😜

  • Elaine Burnett
    Elaine Burnett

    Finding multiple ways to waste taxpayer dollars, while giving back nothing of value.

  • Kiing Chunk502
    Kiing Chunk502

    You condone suppressed media? Good to know. I don’t agree with full government control of media, but I also don’t agree that one side can get gas lighted and literally blocked out while that was the whole reason for the one side to get suppressed. Shit gonna change in the next 10 years, once all these corrupt fossils die out.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      @Kiing Chunk502 wait, wait. Yes, of course, every media outlet would fact check things they want to fact check. That's why you *don't* limit freedom of the press - by doing so you can ensure there would be somebody to investigate everything, because that's what people do. Then it's a question of access, but it's not like it's exactly a problem in modern Internet. You can't *make* Fox News to fact check if some claim of people they're translating is true, and it's not nessessary their job. You can't demand people by law to be impartial. And yes, when somebody on Fox News says that Trump did something good, you don't make Fox News to fact check it. You can (and you should, if you feel so) to ridicule them for promoting "unproven" opinion or fact. That's how media market is supposed to work. Yes, I deliberatly taking Fox News here to show it's two-sided issue, and making Facebook to provide fact checks under threat of law retaliation means that Fox News would be obliged to do the same (or, well, not?), and STILL I'm against it. Because this way you make it very easy to manipulate media to government benefit, and that's the thing people better avoid. It's never pretty; when US government got an ability to censor, the first thing they did was to suppress political opposition. And it's how press always worked (look into Running for Governor from Twain, it's 1870s), and it's how it would work if it's free press.

    • Kiing Chunk502
      Kiing Chunk502

      @Andrey Gutiontov idgaf who we start with if you are giving out informative information there shouldn’t be opinion/bias.that’s what the people are for, to give their opinion on the subjected facts. And if not first FB should be top 3, they fact check, but only what they want to fact check. Example: Biden does something bad, fact check Trump does something good, fact check. I can’t speak on Twitter because I don’t use it, I can only speak on what I see when I use somthing.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      ​ @Kiing Chunk502 "News reporting", "journalism" and "media" are different things. And, well, if we're going to forbid everybody who give opinions and analysis to be called "news", let's start with Fox *News*, not from Facebook.

    • Kiing Chunk502
      Kiing Chunk502

      @Andrey Gutiontov if your writer is bias they will only give opinions and facts from their “side”assuming that writer is for the news/media

    • Kiing Chunk502
      Kiing Chunk502

      @Andrey Gutiontov if you are giving out “news” that means you are only giving out informative information, that means only facts should be produced, the pure information. that goes for podcast/radio/talk shows that are claiming to be news, opinion isn’t news, facts are news. But like I said that’s only if that media is giving off the impression that they are “news”, like anyone can give their opinion, but if you are saying you are the “news” then your opinion will sway other peoples opinions because they are processing it as facts. If you are giving out news you should be non bias because when you are bias you only want to take in and give out what you believe.

  • Salamanders Marine
    Salamanders Marine

    But the companies receive millions from government organizations. Not very private

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Yes, I suppose the idea of corporate subsidisizing AND lowering corporate tax "because they're good for economy" is not exactly reasonable practice. Still, if we use THIS as a reason for calling corporations public-owned, well, a lot of American "private business" is actually public-owned. But I'm totally up for linking tax breaks or govenmental contracts to submission for some Congress-defined policy (and rise corporate tax to increase intensitive to follow). I just rarely see this plans from the rights.

  • Voter fraud Is real
    Voter fraud Is real

    Do you not have anything other to do in your life except defend Democrats stupidity?

  • moicus29
    moicus29

    If another govt did to democrats what dems in tech did to republicans in 2020, it would be considered information warfare. If you want more days like Jan 6th, by all means keep supporting silencing the oppo.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Weird thing. I'm looking at McCarthy's twitter right now. It somehow works. Maybe it's not about being Republican, hmmm?..

  • moicus29
    moicus29

    Devin's/lawfare dems' pov here is the scariest part of the cultural schism. "Telecoms controlling access to public airwaves have 1st amdt rights to suppress republicans at will". Do you hear yourself?

    • George Hillams
      George Hillams

      Thanks for the laughs!

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Facebook doesn't "control access to public airwaves".

  • moicus29
    moicus29

    I don't think its pandering. Big tech had silenced doctors, and leaders trying to inform people about where to get vacines. Its getting bad guys. You just havn't felt it on your end yet.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      I'm sorry, does every platform in United States OBLIGED to give platform for doctors and leaders trying to inform people about where to get vaccines?

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      You have a source for that claim?

  • SRC
    SRC

    They did pass a law for mandatory prayer in schools. Bcuz seperation of church and state right.....? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Maybe they will pray for less school shootings

  • Daniel West
    Daniel West

    Moderation is for things that break TOS, these social media groups have been unevenly applying their TOS, or even removing those that haven't broken any rules.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      @Daniel West why do you think so?

    • Daniel West
      Daniel West

      @Andrey Gutiontov no, 230 allows them to remove TOS violations- which include violations of law (they are a platform), OR they can be a PUBLISHER, for which ever they have on their service is their responsibility.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      And that's their right.

  • coffee trainwreck
    coffee trainwreck

    He looks like an advisor from a city building game

  • drac Balo
    drac Balo

    That’s a sad interpretation of free speech

  • Draco_Magnus
    Draco_Magnus

    So they are able to moderate what is written on their platform? Great, we'll hold them legaly accountable from now on for everything posted.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      And that's how you kill Internet. Because this way nobody in his good senses would create any kind of thematic forum, for example.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Except that the law specifically states that they arn't. So good luck with that.

  • DoYouEvenLarp BRUH
    DoYouEvenLarp BRUH

    Twitter and facebook are the new town square. Most of the worod uses them to share opinions and stay up to date on random shit. It's a public forum. They shouldnt be allowed to censor people they dont agree with unless it's just some off the wall crazy shit lol

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Oh, so they CAN censor people who are "just some off the wall crazy shit lol", huh? Who decide who is "just some off the wall crazy shit lol", and who isn't?

  • Rob Vincent
    Rob Vincent

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Seems pretty clear to me that a federal law allowing a corporation to censor speech on a public forum is unconstitutional.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      OR OF THE PRESS. They literally can't make a law demanding that information service is OBLIGED to provide space to everybody.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Nothing in the first amendment guarantees anyone a platform. Nor does the first amendment actually apply to corperations to begin with; it is a restriction specific to the US government. Also, you're conflating moderation with censorship.

  • Maaaadmen
    Maaaadmen

    If trump Tards ran Facebook Twitter Instagram IRbin and they didn't like what Biden and Harris have to say so they deplatform them would you guys feel the same way.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Of course I would. It's quite possible I would boycott Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and IRbin for that. I wouldn't call a legislation allowing government to shut them down or require some kind of prescripted moderation policy on them. Because every time government gets an ability to set up global moderation policy, it ends ugly.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      I'd laugh at their lame practices and wonder how they're still in business. Considering that nobody kicked Trump off of social media until after his presidency (even though he'd long since done things that deserved it) that's clearly not an accurate representation of what they've been doing.

  • Maaaadmen
    Maaaadmen

    Well they enjoy immunity saying we're not responsible for what people post but at the same time claim that they are responsible for what people post that is why they deplatform them.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Ahm... no? They are not *legally responsible* for what people post, but they *can* moderate content of their service. They're not OBLIGED to, but have RIGHT to.

    • Stephen2462
      Stephen2462

      Social media companies have every right and reason to moderate their own platforms.

  • monkaminnow
    monkaminnow

    this guys such a snowflake

  • Torrel
    Torrel

    Except they are platforms and if they moderate they should be treated as media. Can't have best of both workds

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Well, we have Internet because it was decided in 1996 it *should* have best of both worlds. (and, anyways, declaring that newspaper is responsible for, let's say, any kind of blurt Trump/Biden said and they reported is quite dystopian by itself)

  • what we must be
    what we must be

    Lmao India passed new laws and all companies are now liable and culpable for what they do and allow. Noicee

  • Rex O'Connell
    Rex O'Connell

    Private companies may dictate who may or may not hold office. See a problem? If not you will when popular opinion swings the other way and the fake woke community is banned.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Like, yikes! Socialists were crying about it just for more then two hundred years! Can we, if that's a problem, also remove non-public money from campaigns, institute actual anticorruption laws, and, maybe, make a law *requiring* a person in public office to forfiet business interest?

  • cvbrocks
    cvbrocks

    See, the thing is, these social media groups have monopolized the public square and have control over who speaks and what opinions are voiced they act like a publisher but claim they are a platform. And so, if they act like a publisher they shouldn't be allowed to have the protection of 230. A second point, you cannot claim that these social media companies are also not guilty of disrupting free speech, as the video said itself they censor political characters.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      ​@cvbrocks > Because businesses and governments are flawed, and the people of them will act in their own gain, even if it harms numerous others. Yes, socialists are shouting about it for, like, two hundred years, right. There is a country where being called a socialist is somehow a synonimos for being called a traitor. I mean, yes, it is a problem; but saying "everything ok with our idea of property and private industries UNTIL THEY'RE BLOCKING CONSERVATIVES!" isn't a solution. Saying "ok, the idea of private ownership being the most efficient and public-best is failing", though, is a nice sentiment, but I don't think stopping on Facebook is a good idea. You can't just say: oh, I should be allowerd to regulate private property if I feel like that (if I feel entitled because I decided it's my public square), but nobody have a right to regulate mine or something I like. You can't say that social media is so important for society that it should be harshly regulated, but pharmaceuticals being private and making their rules is sacred. Or you can just let Facebook and Twitter and Dysney be and create new social media funded by public by taxes, with local rules being defined as an Act of Congress, forbidding any kind of moderation or excommunication, and let the people decide. (I'm not even starting to mention that by this action you're also define that US have a right to regulate *global* public squarem but hey)

    • cvbrocks
      cvbrocks

      @Andrey Gutiontov I do think you have a point with your arguments though and am open minded with em, but there is still a problem and it needs a solution.

    • cvbrocks
      cvbrocks

      @Andrey Gutiontov Giving the government that right is a bad idea, yes, I'm not saying the actual media needs to be given no protection, just that social media needs to be broken up because of it strangle hold on those kinds of platforms. We did decide to center around these platforms. Because at first they didn't seem all that threatening, they didnt over reach their power like they do today. It's the reason I don't use Twitter or Facebook or any of their services. To move back up to your first point. While I am a patriot, so much so, I'm joining the armed forces, I do not think this country is without its flaws. We have given the internet free will and I love that, but the problem is that the internet has become an oligarchy, with only a few companies leading the public along in a path they want. The thing I'd like to see the most is a bill of rights for the internet. Because businesses and governments are flawed, and the people of them will act in their own gain, even if it harms numerous others.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      ​@cvbrocks yes, I'd like that. When we're at that, can we also forfiet legal protections for other types of media? Like, let's allow government to prosecute newspapers for "unjust coverage", allow them to punish movie makers for "unpatriotic films"... Giving government a right to regulate the press. What can possibly go wrong... I mean, it's not like US government ever used any kind of censorship powers to silence and jail political oppo... oh. Oh. Still, the problem is, you somehow believe that it was social media groups who are to blame that they own public squares. That's the other way around - *we* decided that centralised our public squares into private property was a pretty neat idea, and now meeting the obvious consequences. It's like, town decided that private guest room of one of the townfolk is a "public square", and now they're calling to forfiet his right to decide whom to invite onto dinner. Not good in my book.

    • cvbrocks
      cvbrocks

      @Andrey Gutiontov You agree that they have monopolized the public square, so perhaps anti-trust laws would be a better solution to you?

  • C H
    C H

    Social media platforms have too much power to let them do their own thing. There needs to be more regulations for them.

    • Shade Everton
      Shade Everton

      Unfortunately the moron representatives we have will just let them write their own regulations, and they will use that to gain even more power.

  • Brian Burke
    Brian Burke

    I wish you didn’t exist on my screen it sad

  • Paper Problem
    Paper Problem

    If anyone remembers when weed was half way legal. This law may not stick. But it will cause a lot of bumps for them until something real does stick. Change is happening. Qnd social media is the new public. Hence why full freedom of speech should apply to social media, and not up to their discretion. We are not in the 90s anymore. Its something that needs to change with the times.

  • John Mccarthy
    John Mccarthy

    But Twitter said it was a human right to use its service so shouldn't that meen that they can't stop anyone from using it?

  • Grimm Reaper
    Grimm Reaper

    They fuvking up Florida's rep we're crazy not stupid

  • Robert Bennett
    Robert Bennett

    Then they need to change these platfourm to a publisher and not a social media platform

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Please, can ANYBODY explain me, where this strange sentiment came from? It's very persistent, but I can't understand the logic or factual basis.

  • David -
    David -

    For a lawyer you must suck to not even know the constitution I can’t believe you just said it’s a federal law so the states have to follow, that’s not how that works

  • Jonathon Cowley-Thom
    Jonathon Cowley-Thom

    Essentially any speech made via a social media platform is in a sense speech by the social media platform owner, in the same way that when Tucker Carlson says something on Fox News, that's Fox News saying it. So preventing social media platforms from banning people falls foul of the prohibition on compelled speech under the first amendment.

  • Hhhut Hhhjj
    Hhhut Hhhjj

    Very superficial video ( of course it's a short) and dumb comments ofcourse

  • Nathan Paske
    Nathan Paske

    Got to win the battle proving they a publisher or common carrier first. For websites like Wikipedia this will be easy because encyclopedias are assumed to be published but twitter or others will need to be proven to be like your ISP or telecomm provider. I think that argument is simple but they have a lot of money so in the US legal system it has a 95% chance of going nowhere

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      I'm sorry, why would they be *common* carriers?

  • Jordy
    Jordy

    This is dumbest thread. I have never witnessed a group of people arguing using the first amendment to censor individuals. I thought the left was for the individual liberties especially protecting liberties that big corporations try to take. It’s just a matter of time till they come after you all.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      @Jordy First of all, the fundamental basis of liberalism is the idea that society and especially government (including, yes, courts and lawmakers) can't force people to do things they don't want to do. That called "government by consent" and is fundamental to liberalism. I can't really imagine Locke, Paine and, let's say, Voltaire consider an act of person in his private media deciding who is speaking and who is not as a tyranny: like, when Voltaire wrote Encyclopedia, he wasn't feeling obliged to allow everybody to write whatever they wanted, and Paine didn't decided suddenly that "Common Sense" should be in half written by Washington. What *is* abhorrent is the use of force to forbid people to speak in general or in public property; it doesn't mean it's obligate every owner of platform platform every person. I can't imagine classical liberals demanding private house to accept people owner of the house don't want accept under the threat of governmental retaliation just because this private house somehow became the most prominent meeting place in the town. That's exactly why First Amendment protecting not just freedom of the speech, but also freedom of the press (that included not just newspapers, but, for example, books - like, people who *trade* books are also under the protection of freedom of the press, government can't just limit which books can be sold) - and every freedom isn't just positive, but negative as well. Freedom of religion means you can pray whoever you like OR not to pray at all. Freedom of speech means you can speak whatever you like OR to stay silent. Freedom of assembly means you can unite with other people OR stay alone (meaning you can't force people to join labor union). Freedom of the press meaning you can chose to sell some books OR plainly consider them abhorrent and never allow them in your house. I give Founders that, they understood that the only way to ensure that private platform would accept a person its owner doesn't want is by force. And if government have such a power, they can and they will use it to silence opposition. Which, yes, would be tyranny. After all, if government has right to govern Facebook, why not newspapers? TV? Religious communities? Private meetings? Modern leftists are usually oppose big business politically, yes, including big tech. I don't remember a lot of fascination about Gates, Jobs or, yes, Zuckerberg; they (we) consider private capital hold on media being a threat to democracy since Hearst at best. But revoking their liberties which are fundamental for society leftists want to build is going too far. It's not the way. Maybe a law making every social media with some kind of breaking limit of users being paid by government and therefore allowed to be regulated is a working way. Let's increase general corporate tax (to get money), and do tax laxes to social media companies accepted governmental supervision; do you see this idea from right side of the aisle a lot? Do you see the idea of buying Facebook and Twitter out from private users and make them quasi-public corporations a-la Amtrak or COMSAT or Voice of America often? Because it's not about promoting freedom for them, it's about suppressing freedom; it's about suppressing freedom of the press because they want to be accepted to every platform. It's the same thing as fining (or removing protection under the law) to private bookseller because he decided not to sell Marx or Delgado. If your public square is in private property, you shouldn't govern private property as it's public; you should pull your public square the hell out or buy out it from private property.

    • Jordy
      Jordy

      @Andrey Gutiontov I don't really get your point. Hence, I can not really respond to what you are saying. However, I will clarify my point. I understand the first amendment, but I am not talking in terms of legalities. I think thats a terrible way to argue, because slavery and other autracities were once legal, but that does not make it necessarily right. Therefore, my argument is that of sheer principle. To my understanding traditional liberalism (as expressed by voltair, John Locke, Thomas Paine and others) fundamentally opposes the act of silencing others. To actually use the law as the mode in which you can favor huge tech companies to silent about 50% of the nation, is what they will consider tyranny. This is why modern liberals or leftist seem more authoritarian than what they call themselves. For they are no long consistent with their conviction nor really care for the liberaties fo those that oppose them politically.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      ​@Jordy you see, you can't at once declare that journalist have a freedom of speech and therefore should never be non-printed, and that newspaper's publisher have a freedom of press and can select what to print. Something should be redefined. And if you would redefine freedom of press, well, why can't I have all the time I want on Fox News?

    • Jordy
      Jordy

      @Andrey Gutiontov that’s not my point.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      First Amendment protects freedom of press - allowing owner/editor of the press issue to decide what is and what isn't on issue. Essentially, when President demands private newspaper to publish his speech (under, let's assume, threat of prosecution), he's definitely breaking First Amendment.

  • Sweet_Dale
    Sweet_Dale

    But they don't follow section 230. They create loopholes by not being clear on their rules witch excuses them when they silence free speech. They don't follow the rules of section 230 and no one enforced the rule because its used as a political tool.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Under Section 230 they can silence whatever they want if they believe content is, quote, "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or *otherwise objectionable*".

  • Cameron
    Cameron

    Missing the caveat that the company can ban people in conjunction with it's tos. BUT it has to do it across the board.

  • Jed Pad
    Jed Pad

    It’s an issue because these platforms have gotten so big they are basically today’s “town square” also it is quite weird seeing left wing people cheer for mega corporations ehh oh well screw the left and the right

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      The problem is, selecting between state moderating "town squares", and corporations doing the same, I still prefer corporations. Current law saying that state power can't be invoked in this places beyond obvious violations of criminal laws, and that's a good thing. A *bad* thing is that we allowed four companies privatize town squares, but hey, what now, we're going to nationalize it? Not a bad idea in principle, but who would support infrastructure in question then?

  • David Dean
    David Dean

    Silencing speech and deplatforming candidates while promoting others they approve of sounds good to who?

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      People who live in cities

  • Jacob Howes
    Jacob Howes

    Feds should change these laws when 3 or big twch companies are like 90% of free speech.

  • Arakwar
    Arakwar

    Let the First Amendment be the main reason why this law fails. It will be hilarious to see how people will try to use the 1st to defend Trump while it’s actually the opposite.

  • KidozyGAME
    KidozyGAME

    So does this also allow social media platforms to play favorites and unevenly and unfairly enforce their rules and TOS?

    • Joey Cottrell
      Joey Cottrell

      Of course look at all the isis propaganda on Twitter none of it was banned or censored trump talked shit to people and bam banned lol same thing with youtube banning mgtow channels and the many attempts to ban Steven Crowder a right wing channel because of what he says and stuff but they failed everytime

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Well, yes, of course.

  • Bảo Hồ Trần Gia
    Bảo Hồ Trần Gia

    So free speech is selective ?!??!

  • ryan brennan
    ryan brennan

    The issue with this entire debate is that yes social media companies are private entities. However they try to claim they are considered part of the media as well as a free platform for open discussion and discourse. They can't be both and neither at the same time. Deplatforming political candidates on an open platform is the same as silencing a political rival. It's not legal. As a private corporation they can do that. As an open platform they can not. The problem arises when you see that there is no law preventing them from being a private company and claiming open platform rights or vise versa. These companies have enough influence that they need to be considered a major political influencer (because they are) and should be subjected to new definitions as well as laws. Either they allow all political speech as an open platform. Or they allow none and can claim they are a private entity. That is the only right way to handle social media.

  • Laundry Detergent
    Laundry Detergent

    they’re just gunna let the left opinion shine over everything else. Social media is going to drive a bigger steak between the two halves of our country. I love big steaks, but not that kind.

  • D S
    D S

    Oh their “moderating content” all right. They censor the right while giving the left free reign.

    • TheWarriorWraith
      TheWarriorWraith

      @callmeacutekitten Well if you're on a contract then it would be because both parties involved are bound by contract. If you do not have a contract, and break some rule of theirs in the terms and conditions, I don't see why they couldn't drop you as a customer.

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      @TheWarriorWraith then why can't phone service companies stop peoples services when they hear something they dont like?

    • JT Turner
      JT Turner

      @TheWarriorWraith but when someone tries starting a new platform for free speech they completely destroy it.

    • TheWarriorWraith
      TheWarriorWraith

      When it happens it’s a shame, but they are private businesses, they can do what they want on their platform.

  • Mads Andersen
    Mads Andersen

    He almost sound happy about the Texas law not being able to hold up in the bureaucratic and corrupt court system... These huge businesses will take all freedoms and rights from people.

    • Zeldagigafan
      Zeldagigafan

      You don't have a right to use Twitter or other social media services. Just like how you don't have a right to drive. They're all privileges which can be revoked at a moments notice.

  • aaron peterson
    aaron peterson

    I keep waiting for quasi-public doctrine to catch up with the virtual landscape and to see some 1st amendment territory staked out online. "it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it.". Tell me that doesn't sound like some uses of twitter, youtube, tiktok, and twitch.

  • Joel Book
    Joel Book

    Again, how does the 1st amendment allow these platforms to limit speech?

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      ​@Joel Book Sorry, I don't understand the question.

    • Joel Book
      Joel Book

      @Andrey Gutiontov if social media is the press then why are users paid per post?

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Simple. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, *or of the press*; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of the press is a right of press maker (newspaper publisher, for example) to decide what is and what isn't in their medium. If a president, under a threat of prosecution, demands some newspaper to publish his speech, it's violating freedom of the press, and supposingly illegal in USA.

  • Froot Luips
    Froot Luips

    Y’all are deliberately missing the point. Section 230 was written into law for moderation of forums, not publications. Conservatives are making the argument that social media platforms that engage in regular censorship of political opinions (not harassment, just legit difference of opinion) are acting as a “publication” and should not be given the rights outlined in section 230. This argument has been made clear over and over and over, and people still don’t want to understand it. You can disagree with the argument, but at least make sure understand what their argument actually is.

  • Michalis Xyran
    Michalis Xyran

    How does that work if media companies can use the free speech to deplatform someone elses free speech? Thats kind of an oxymoron, right? Like who's free speech is more important? Because someone or many people are obviously being silenced in favor of a more popular narrative and not exactly for morally objective truth and/or common sense. I guess whatevers trending most right? Its a difficult thing when free speech is being used to put down the little people if those that do it are already powerful and influential.

  • Archoss 223
    Archoss 223

    No I agree private businesses are allowed to do what they want, which is why we as consumers shouldn't use these platforms if we don't agree with the unjust sensorship.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Wanna bet it wouldn't happen?

  • A & B C
    A & B C

    Gotta love all that shilling for big tech sponsorship.

    • callmeacutekitten
      callmeacutekitten

      Dr. Kiss Ass does it a lot

  • wes c
    wes c

    What your saying is that a communications company can get so large that they can legally control who can win a election? If there are four large communication companies controlling most of the news they can work together to get their choice into the presidency? If nothing else I'd call that huge and expensive donations to one candidate at the expense of freedom of speech.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      *Yes*. That's what is "uncontrolled market" really means.

  • Angel Salcido
    Angel Salcido

    But I wanna scream the n word on discord!!!!!

  • Austin Powers
    Austin Powers

    How does no one realize how corrupt it makes you look to BAN the PRESIDENT. Shame on yall for allowing this

  • Tj R
    Tj R

    Yes freedom of speech. I should not be kicked off Facebook for sharing video of trump on Memorial Day hugging a kid who lost his father

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Freedom of the press. It's for Facebook to decide.

  • NoSauceOrBroth Child
    NoSauceOrBroth Child

    No. Controlling information is trash.

  • Ancient Tech
    Ancient Tech

    My understanding was that section 230 was created to protect platforms from the misdeeds of their users, specifically in regards to copyright violations and other illegal activities. If a company is actively removing content which is not illegal, can they still be classified as a platform or have they become a publisher? I don't know if this question will be addressed, but it certainly should.

    • Andrey Gutiontov
      Andrey Gutiontov

      Section 230 explicitly saying it's *not* protect copyright violation. And no, "platform" isn't a thing that is defended by Section 230. It's "provider or user of an interactive computer service". Which Facebook undoubtly is, whatever it size is.

  • Jack
    Jack

    They should've focused more on allowing competition than what certain sites can have on them. The only actual thing that maybe shouldn't have been allowed is when a competitor to Twitter came out and they removed it from everything because of politics. They said make your own platform and then removed the platform until it no longer mattered in their eyes. I'm not sure of the legality or anything, I just thought it was kind of messed up that it happened like that.

بعد