TZUTC: -0400   
   MSGID: 696.fidoclassicc@1:275/89 230edbbe   
   REPLY: 697.fido_classicc@1:340/7 230c9d71   
   PID: Synchronet 3.18a-Win32  Apr 15 2020 MSC 1925   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.10-Win32 r3.159 Apr 15 2020 MSC 1925   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   -=> Daniel wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-   
      
    Da> Don't forget the buzzwords such as 'violent speech.' That's my   
    Da> favorite.   
      
   Oh, ya. "Hate speech".  Which we've found to really mean "speech we don't like"   
   or "speech that doesn't match our Narrative".   
      
    Da> I'm really torn though. These companies have tons of power but are also   
    Da> public companies. They're under no obligation to follow the   
    Da> constitutional free speech protections because they're not the   
    Da> government. Nor should they. On the other hand, their downfall will be   
    Da> the very act of censorship/discrimination that they practice.   
      
   I completely agree.  But these companies want the best of both worlds.   
      
   On one hand, they want to be a platform (like the phone network) and not be   
   held responsible for what others post on their platform.  I get that.  I would   
   argue that companies like Facebook and YouTube wouldn't be able to exist if   
   they had to vet every post.   
      
   But on the other hand, they want the power to edit speech that they don't like.   
    But that makes them a publisher and they **are** responsible for their content   
   on their platform.   
      
   They can't have it both ways.  The rules don't work like that.   
      
   If Facebook or YouTube want to deplatform/censor certain people, I'll agree   
   with that.  But then they lose their Section 230 protection and can be sued for   
   what other people post.   
      
   If they want that protection, that's fine too.  But they lose their ability to   
   silence people they don't like.   
      
   And remember, I'm not talking about Facebook or YouTube taking content down   
   because a court told them to do so.   
      
    Da> This is why I feel the democratic party is dead. I call them the   
    Da> democrat party now. In another thread, I said that their ethos is   
    Da> fragile. AOC is evidence of it. Her barside politics tore them to   
    Da> shreds and she didn't even try and she did in a year what people   
    Da> haven't done in a century.   
      
   I agree.  The Democrat Party is gone.  Left in its place is the Socialist Party   
   because the people there have much more in common with socialists.   
      
   ... 20 Dumb Blonds in freezer:  Frosted flakes.   
   --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52   
    * Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/5 15/0 18/200 19/36 90/1 106/201 116/18 120/331   
   SEEN-BY: 120/340 601 123/140 128/2 153/7715 154/10 218/700 222/2 226/16   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/101 426 452 664 981 1014 230/150 152 240/1120   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5832 249/1 206 317 400 250/1 261/38 100 266/512 267/155   
   SEEN-BY: 275/100 282/1031 1056 291/100 111 317/3 320/119 219 322/757   
   SEEN-BY: 340/400 341/66 342/13 200 396/45 633/0 267 280 281 384 408   
   SEEN-BY: 633/410 412 416 640/1321 1384 712/620 848 770/1 801/161 189   
   SEEN-BY: 2320/105 3634/12 5020/1042 5053/58   
   PATH: 275/89 100 261/38 712/848 633/280 229/426