Doesn't that make them publishers? A violation of section 230? Or did I miss something here.
Doesn't that make them publishers? A violation of section 230? Or did I miss something here.
Perhaps but section 230 only provides immunity (my understanding, IANAL). Someone still has to prosecute/sue them for something. And someone is suing them is how this statement came about.
In practice the government lets Big Tech do whatever they want, and lawsuits have not been succeeding.
Perhaps but section 230 only provides immunity (my understanding, IANAL). Someone still has to prosecute/sue them for something. And someone is suing them is how this statement came about.
In practice the government lets Big Tech do whatever they want, and lawsuits have not been succeeding.
I think by now 230 just means "we can't be prosecuted for anything we do"
I think by now 230 just means "we can't be prosecuted for anything we do"
Facebook is run by (((cat lovers)))
Facebook is run by (((cat lovers)))
Not that I don't hate Faceberg, but if you read the actual statement, it doesn't say what the Tweet says it does. It actually says the "Fact Check" isn't written by Meta, but by a third party company, and then adds that the LABELS are protected opinion.
So they're actually referring the the LABELS and not the "fact check". I get that it's a subtle difference, but it's important to be technically correct.
Not that I don't hate Faceberg, but if you read the actual statement, it doesn't say what the Tweet says it does. It actually says the "Fact Check" isn't written by Meta, but by a third party company, and then adds that the LABELS are protected opinion.
So they're actually referring the the LABELS and not the "fact check". I get that it's a subtle difference, but it's important to be technically correct.
That's just kike legal trickery. Just like how they use wires strung about the city and torturing chickens to trick their "God".
That's just kike legal trickery. Just like how they use wires strung about the city and torturing chickens to trick their "God".
In a sane world, that would mean the platform could not restrict people accounts and posts for things they disagree with.
In a sane world, that would mean the platform could not restrict people accounts and posts for things they disagree with.
So is Fakebook a common carrier or do they exercise editorial control and are therefore legally liable for the content of the site? Can't have it both ways in our system, this isn't Schrodinger's Legal Situation.
So is Fakebook a common carrier or do they exercise editorial control and are therefore legally liable for the content of the site? Can't have it both ways in our system, this isn't Schrodinger's Legal Situation.
And conversely the courts claim niggers are humans when everybody knows otherwise.
Its like the dark ages with the courts... let alone the fuckbookers
And conversely the courts claim niggers are humans when everybody knows otherwise.
Its like the dark ages with the courts...
let alone the fuckbookers
(post is archived)