-=> IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-

 IJ> There must be some sort of caveat added to their protection... That
 IJ> they can't act knowingly to subvert free speech.

But places like Facebook can legally do that.

Here's what I see happened:
+ Legally, Facebook **can** limit speech on its platform.  Since it's not a
gov't agency there's no First Amendment issue.
+ But we now know that Facebook took orders from the gov't - now we are in
First Amendment territory - but not for Facebook, but rather the gov't
officials who gave the orders.
+ But Facebook is now moderating its content to such an extent that it should
lose it's Section 230 protection, which opens it up to many, many lawsuits.

All this is happening behind a facade of "But Facebook is a private company and
they can do what they want." That's a very simplistic statement.  Facebook
**can** do what they want on their platform.  But there are consequences for
that.

I think these social media sites knew (at least some higher ups knew) that what
they were doing was going to cause problems.  But the Elitists in power told
them that they wouldn't be held accoutable for the consequences.  But now the
Elitists are no longer in power.

 IJ> I use to watch a channel called Doug In Exile and YouTube took his
 IJ> channel down.  No warning... there is was gone.  He was one of those
 IJ> fact based channels that sometimes didn't show the Democrats in a
 IJ> positive light.

Yup.  Just replace "Facebook" above with "YouTube".  All the social media sites
are going to have big problems next year.


... Get gun.  Shoot computer.  Turn off lights...
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)