impartialobserver

Can't say that for everybody but quite a few would never have caught wind of it without social media. I remember the pre-internet days (yes, I am old) and stories did not go as viral unless they were something like 9/11 (just an example of a big event)

This year was such a letdown for most fans. Yeah, I know Alabama won yet another championship. But for the smaller schools, the big nonconference games mostly went away. Next year, hoping to see some more upsets like Louisiana taking down Iowa State.

so if there was no section 230 then this place would seem to be open to such lawsuits? There would be no more open platforms or at least not as freely accessible to as facebook is now.

Why is that?

The underlying assumption is always that if you do not like X then there are dozens (or more) other options. In the case of something like Parler, there are few options in the short term. Long term, they would have to build their own internet infrastructure and you should be able to see how difficult that would be. Without Congress intervening, it is assumed that society will police this.

Its a fine line between allowing someone to operate their legally acquired private property.. in this case a server or DNS server and them being too big. In this case, it is not just pricing and competition, it is ability to disseminate information.

Amazon de-platforming Parler is not a first amendment issue. Why? Amazon is not a government entity. The first Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall not...". Is this right? No. I have learned quite a bit recently about this and come to find out Amazon owns/operates a huge amount of servers/infrastructure behind the internet. That gives it power to do what it did with Parler.

Twitter, amazon, google not liking something is not a first amendment issue. The reason is that these are not Congress or any government. Their protections against lawsuits (section 230) are not the same concept. However, that does not mean that you have to like what is going on. The focus IMO should not be on the first amendment but rather society being thin skinned.

This shows myself that folks are far, far too bored. If they so bored, I have an old irrigation system that needs dug up.

Yes. One can support some of the platform/agenda but disagree on gun control. I vote third party so not describing myself. When ballot initiatives regarding guns have came up here, I have voted against them.

He has since passed away but my grandfather. While he was not the biological, he was married to my grandma from 1966 to when she passed in 2014. He was a WWII veteran that chose to live in the most remote of settings (as far as the lower 48 states are concerned). He was very Conservative but also a straight shooter. Unlike most, he would call people out on their exaggerations and baseless opinions. You did not run your mouth around him. When folks from the big city would come down river (as they call it), it was always fun watching him reduce their supposedly complex, sophisticated, nuanced, e

Any actions taken by the Senate will surely take longer than 6 days (when Biden is inaugurated) so it seems a bit hollow.

Everybody is a fascist/communist when you do not get what you want

Every place is different but it seems as if things were way worse back in April/May last year in my neck of the woods. A large percentage of the office and surrounding depts all came down with it in a very quick fashion. Since June 2020, not much to talk about

Your thread about the Ten Republicans who voted against Trump (or whatever) is still visible. How are you being censored?