(01-11-2021 12:48 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 11:31 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  ... and I'm sure HUGE platforms like Twitter Facebook and Amazon have their share of nut jobs and lunatics. So are these organizations hypocrites? I really don't think it's that simple. A case might be able to be made that if you allow these companies to effectively destroy Parler then they can effectively destroy any small startup by the same means. And that would be illegal, not a violation of Free Speech but it illegal still.

Facebook and Twitter don't allow the "nut jobs and lunatics" to spread their dangerous rhetoric and plotting, Parler is literally harboring it...

The Chinese embassies Twitter account is still up despite the fact that they recently boasted about sterilizing Ugihur women. Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account is still up with his 300,000 plus followers. A long-standing anti-semite and racist. So I don't know what you mean by "dangerous rhetoric." I don't know what you mean by "plotting." But I'll say this - dangerous rhetoric to you may be something else is someone else. Just because you find someone else's statement ridiculous, or conspiratorial, or dangerous, isn't a reason, at least an ethical one, to ban that speech imo. If you mean by "plotting" some dude on the internet who has the current means to follow through on those threats then that's already illegal - whether it's on Parler, Facebook, or Twitter. Section 230 does not provide immunity to these platforms if they knowingly allow illegal activity. At least that's my understanding.

Section 230e1 (a platform knows about criminal conduct - no immunity)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230