9 thoughts on “Big-Tech Censorship”

  1. How would these state laws circumvent the federal section 230 exemption? Why wouldn’t the techopolies just file for injunctive relief in federal court? Under Section 230 they are not publishers. So then it boils down to whose interpretation applies? Is it political or hate speech or “disinformation”? It takes 50 courts to decide? Or one court to rule them all and in its rulings bind them?

    1. Hinderaker says he thinks the case for pre-emption in the case of the MN law is weak, although he doesn’t explicitly say why.

  2. Its illegal for government to use corporations to enact policy that is illegal for the government to enact. While Democrats are always both in and out of power at the same time, they use both their party power structure and government powers to circumvent what is legally permissible for government to do.

    Too bad we dont have an independent DOJ.

    Good luck to the states trying to stop the progressive fascists. It is nice to see Republicans actually doing something rather than, well, let’s just leave it there.

  3. In my opinion this would be a huge step backwards. It’s going to make content so litigious that the only way out is to not let anyone post anything. The walls come down, to be replaced by court-approved spokesproxies you can either vote up or down. Madmen go 21st Century.

    Nope the answer to this is decentralized social media. You don’t like what someone writes don’t subscribe to what’s being shared from their non-PC PC. Or refute it.

    1. Is it censorship or personal choice for how one’s property is being used if in a decentralized social network you don’t store and forward content you don’t subscribe to. Interesting. Latency as the determinate of popularity. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem if it took a few days to pull down pro screeds on K. Marx. The flip side is if it took a week to pull opinions on the latest SpaceX endeavor. But fair is fair as long as I can. Discussion of what JLo wore to the Grammys of course pops up instantly.

  4. Why would the appropriate reaction to censorship on-line be turning not to the market but to the government for more regulation?

  5. The elephant in the room is that these companies have an exception to the laws that limit hate/illegal speech (such as defamation) because they say they don’t censor. (Just like the phone company)

    The simple solution is to remove carrier status if they censor. Let them get sued to oblivion like anyone else that prints hate speech by the wokers.

  6. The simple solution is to remove carrier status if they censor. Let them get sued to oblivion like anyone else that prints hate speech by the wokers.

    Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. What we have now are social media companies saying they are common carriers and allowed to censor their users. In effect they are saying; Section 230 says we’re common carriers, so we can’t be sued for content, but we censor because we are not public utilities but corporations with user agreement policies we can change on whim.

Comments are closed.