On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 7:26:58 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:17:30 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Judged by whose standards? The monolith with no rules or rules for certain
people?
Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.
Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.


Yes, with special exemptions set up by Congress. Is this part of special carve
outs that Congress does? Why is it that they only block one side of an argument
but allow more aggressive, hateful speech by others? If you had a site say JJ
Truth which users would sign up and you moderated and someone comes in say Bub.
Bub says Ex lax is the best. The monolith does not like that so they shut you
down. Your thoughts?
I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

I guess he's talking about the 230 protection. But that doesn't enable any special
rights as to setting up terms of service rules. Like we discussed before, remove
the 230 protection and internet companies will be censoring more, because then
they are open to liability suits for what others post on their websites. Who would
host Qanon or Trump then?