Section 230 Haters Aren't Going Away

Though Trump is gone, the desire to bend the internet toward partisan goals is alive and well.


Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, known to its fans as "the 26 words that created the internet," shields social media and other digital platforms from legal liability for user-generated content. Although that protection has enabled myriad forms of online expression, it has become a bête noire for critics on the left and right who are unhappy with the results.

People who oppose government regulation of online speech hoped Donald Trump's departure from the White House would take a repeal of Section 230 off the table. While President Joe Biden has said he favors repealing the law and Vice President Kamala Harris has opposed it since her days as California's attorney general, Section 230's most zealous critics were Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.). Now that both men are standing atop much smaller soapboxes, it seemed possible that Congress would turn its attention elsewhere.

No such luck. Between January and mid-March, seven bills targeting Section 230 were introduced in the House or Senate, sponsored by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

The most ridiculous of these proposals is the Protecting Constitutional Rights From Online Platform Censorship Act, sponsored by Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R–Tenn.). His bill would make it unlawful for web services to remove or restrict access to any content protected by the First Amendment. Facebook would have to permit hardcore pornography. YouTube would have to permit videos of beheadings. Web forums for dog lovers would have to permit long odes to cats, or abortion, or rutabagas. Understandably, the bill has gone nowhere since DesJarlais introduced it on January 4.

The Curbing Abuse and Saving Expression in Technology (CASE-IT) Act, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Steube (R–Fla.), errs in the opposite direction. Under this proposal, web services would lose Section 230 protection for allowing or facilitating any content deemed to be "indecent, obscene, or otherwise harmful to minors" unless the platform could somehow guarantee that no minor could ever access it.

At the same time, Steube's bill would rescind Section 230's liability protection for "dominant" platforms that restrict content "pursuant to policies or practices that are not reasonably consistent with the First Amendment." It is not at all clear what that means, since the First Amendment constrains the government, not private businesses. But the bill says the provision should be "broadly construed" to foster "true diversity of discourse" without "discrimination based on viewpoint."

These two demands would simultaneously require content-based restrictions and forbid viewpoint-based restrictions. They would effectively make it impossible for major platforms to retain Section 230 protection.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, sponsored by Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.), would strip major platforms of liability protection if they fail to make moderation decisions in "good faith." The Abandoning Online Censorship Act, introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R–Texas), would simply eliminate Section 230.

In the Senate, Democrats have introduced their own totally unworkable proposals. Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.) is sponsoring the See Something, Say Something Online Act of 2021, which preserves Section 230 liability protection for social media companies only if they surveil their users and report "suspicious" activity to a new Justice Department agency.

The Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act, backed by Sens. Mark Warner (D–Va.), Mazie Hirono (D–Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D–Va.), and Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), would revoke Section 230 protection for any platform that fails to block "material that is likely to cause irreparable harm"—a phrase the legislation does not define. The bill also would allow liability when the platform has "created or funded the creation of the speech," whether "in whole or in part." Section 230 already does not shield speech created by the platform that carries it. By extending that exception, the SAFE TECH Act could essentially do away with Section 230 entirely, since providing the technical tools and infrastructure for users to post speech could be interpreted as funding its creation.

Finally, a bipartisan Senate bill known as the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act would make it easier for both U.S. regulators and state attorneys general to sue online platforms for violating federal civil laws.

Trump erroneously believed that Section 230 gave social media platforms a license to suspend the accounts of MAGA Republicans or slap warning labels on their posts. In fact, such discretion is protected by the First Amendment, which allows social media companies to decide what content they want to host and on what terms.

Hirono is equally wrong to blame Section 230 for "civil rights and human rights violations, stalking and harassment, and wrongful death." All of those things remain illegal, and individuals responsible for them can still be held accountable under civil and criminal law.

Trump may be gone, but the desire to bend the internet toward partisan goals is alive and well.

NEXT: Brickbat: Green, Green Grass of Home

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That goddamn Trump! Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? He’s even somehow brainwashed Biden and Harris into believing his bullshit – not to mention half the Democrats in Congress! Where will his perfidy end?

    1. He shall forever be known the the omnipotent ruler of the realm.

      1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Geᴛ $192 hᴏurly from Gᴏᴏgle!…Yes this is Auᴛhentic since I jusᴛ gᴏᴛ my fiᴏst payᴏuᴛ of $24413 ᴀnd this wᴀs ᴊust oᴊ a single ᴡeek… I hᴀve ᴀlsᴏ bᴏughᴛ my Rᴀnge Rᴏver Velar righᴛ ᴀfᴛer ᴛhis pᴀyᴏuᴛ…Iᴛ is reᴀlly cᴏᴏl jᴏb I hᴀve ever had and yᴏu wᴏn’ᴛ fᴏrgive yᴏurself irwetrf yᴏurreeᴀᴏ nᴏᴛ ᴄheck iᴛ……READ MORE

    2. Geᴛ $192 hᴏurly from Gᴏᴏgle!…Yes this is Auᴛhentic since I jusᴛ gᴏᴛ my fiᴏst payᴏuᴛ of $24413 ᴀnd this wᴀs ᴊust oᴊ a single ᴡeek… I hᴀve ᴀlsᴏ bᴏughᴛ my Rᴀnge Rᴏver Velar righᴛ ᴀfᴛer ᴛhis pᴀyᴏuᴛ…Iᴛ is reᴀlly cᴏᴏl jᴏb I hᴀve ever had and yᴏu wᴏn’ᴛ fᴏrgive yᴏurself if yᴏu ᴀsdsdsdsᴏ nᴏᴛ ᴄheck iᴛ….

      ====================★ Visit Here

  2. As long as I can order a gay wedding cake, online, from a Muslim baker, then I’m all set. Did I say Muslim baker? I meant to say Jewish baker.

    1. I knew somebody (male) who, out of the blue, proposed to the Muslim baker of a bakery he frequented. It never got as far as any cake discussions. First the baker bluntly turned him down. When the customer repeated his proposal, the Muslim baker served up a knuckle sandwich for the very first time in that shop. True story.

      1. You mean propositioned, right?

        Because walking in off the street and asking someone to marry you is more than a little off-putting, regardless of orientation.

    2. The problem is one of scale not “rights”. Mega corps have power rivaling nation states and therefore should be limited in the same ways. Small businesses do not. Most people intuitively get this because it’s common sense. Curious why lolberts, communists, and liberals struggle with scale as a concept.

      1. The problem is one of scale not “rights”.

        Stupid, stupid narrow thinking. It’s like saying the problem with tigers isn’t the teeth or the claws, but the fact that it weighs 600 lbs. “Getting attacked by 5, 100 lb. wolves isn’t a problem because no one wolf is as big as a tiger. You want a real problem? Try defending yourself against a blue whale attack.”

        Not an issue of others lacking common sense, just exceptionally dumb.

        1. An organized wolfpack is more akin to a trust, while a tiger would be a monopoly. Both are dangerous in their own right. Even if they are not attempting to distort the market or control people’s opinions, their very existence alters the entire landscape.

          To compare, a corner bakery not wanting to bake a cake for someone is more akin to a housecat.

          1. Exactly this. Came here to call out mad.casual on his ridiculous false comparison. Poor guy is dead wrong on this. In what world are small businesses even in the same stadium as megacorps? Comparing 100 lb wolves to a 600 lb tiger? A more appropriate comparison would have been between a 600 lb tiger and a daddy long legs.

            1. *Persistently* stupid, narrow thinking.

              3-4 tigers, 2 dozen wolves, or one bison, which is the biggest threat? Is it because of their mass/scale or because of their inclination to actively disregard whatever rights you may think you have?

          2. An organized wolfpack is more akin to a trust, while a tiger would be a monopoly. Both are dangerous in their own right. Even if they are not attempting to distort the market or control people’s opinions, their very existence alters the entire landscape.

            To compare, a corner bakery not wanting to bake a cake for someone is more akin to a housecat.

            Sure, but tigers, wolves, whales, housecats… all alter the landscape. The issue is which is the biggest problem/threat. Mass alone is a retarded metric.

            “The cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf.”

            “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster”

      2. Mega corps have power rivaling nation states

        Where does Amazon train its mechanized infantry divisions?

        1. Do you think amazon doesn’t have the funds and logistical network to raise and maintain an army? If they tried, do you think anyone would be able to easily stop them?

          And for a historical example, read up on the history of the Dole corporation.

          1. do you think anyone would be able to easily stop them?


            1. Lol who? Same people who “stopped” the Taliban? Imagine what a company like Amazon could do with a trillion dollars in capital, armies of autonomous drones, and more computing power than the DoD. Delusional.

              1. Where are they building their autonomous, armed drones?


                1. I assume that, in this scenario, they wouldn’t publicly let contracts for “Assassin drones”, but would instead craft the specifications for “delivery” drones so that they could be quickly and easily converted over to assassin drones. Perhaps as simply as making sure that they could drop bombs as easily as Fitbits.

                  So you’d roll out autonomous drone delivery of packages, and one night the packages would be bombs delivered to all of Amazon’s previously identified enemies.

                  This reduces it to a problem of sourcing the bombs themselves. They could probably get some overseas help with that.

                  I’m not saying this is a terribly likely scenario, they’d rather own the people running the government, than own the government. But it’s not stupidly impossible. Just rather unlikely.

  3. I was checking on the claim that, despite Trump no longer being President, support for “reforming” Section 230 was still alive and well, and I stumbled across some intersting data.

    Despite Trump being gone, children are still being locked in cages at our southern border.

    Despite Trump being gone, astronomical deficit spending is still going on.

    Despite Trump being gone, racial divisiveness still exists.

    Despite Trump being gone, economic assholery is still a hallmark of the federal government.

    And, most shockingly, despite Trump being gone, the President of the United States still appears to be a puppet for Russian collusion.

    1. “Despite Trump being gone, children are still being locked in cages at our southern border.”


      If there’s one thing I know about Democrats, it’s that they would never run concentration camps or put kids in cages. In fact, Biden liberated and dismantled those monstrous facilities on his first day in office.


      1. He ended covid in his first day in office like he had promised prior to the election.

      2. That’s because Democrats, unlike their opponents, actually keep their campaign promises! That’s why, as you’ll recall, Obama closed down Gitmo, stopped the mass surveillance on Americans, and ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        1. On the impressive list of Pravda-like things our national media has done over the last few years, praising Biden for delaying withdrawal from Afghanistan is near the top of the list.

          1. I liked it when the all gushed about taking the first picture of him with out a mask on. On the White House lawn. Which is federal property. Where you are mandated to wear a mask. Which nobody mentioned.

            1. Principals not principles

    2. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with history understands this is how the establishment reacts when threatened. It works to reinforce its position. One might be forgiven for assuming that a publication dedicated to libertarian principles and in support of liberty would recognize and oppose this behavior as tyranny.

      1. If you find such a publication, can you let the rest of us know?

        1. I would be glad to do so. I’m only here for the comments.

    3. afterhearing dehisces

  4. Vote no on repealing section 230. Do it for the Mute button.

    1. Section 230 doesn’t affect the mute button one way or the other. Everyone able to mute whomever they like is good faith moderation, which was defensible before S230. It’s when the mute button only works on certain users that it becomes bad faith moderation and unassailable under S230.

  5. “Though Trump is gone…” ENB gonna ENB.

    1. I’m really starting to feel a little sorry for some of these poor Reason writers. It appears their TDS really confused their thinking about how the world really works. Just a little though.

      1. Sad that TDS took her best years from her. She’s aged a lot since 2016.

      2. It appears their TDS really confused their thinking about how the world really works. Just a little though.

        I still assert that they were just as confused beforehand, it just gave them cover to be more vocal about their lack of understanding.

      3. The amount of people that Trump’s existence broke is just staggering at this point.

    2. Speaking of, does anyone believe Brown is sincerely opposed to rampant porn on Facebook without qualification or restriction?

      1. Rampant (offensive, undesired) porn on Facebook can be solved by not using Facebook! I don’t use Facebook, so I am not offended, regardless of what Facebook does! Boycotts can solve LOTS of problems, WITHOUT invoking Government Almighty micro-management!

        I think that Brown (I assume you refer to the writer of the article here) opposes un-needed, extra-humongous Government Almighty powers, as all REAL libertarians do!

        1. Congrats. You successfully identified the ridiculous position of Brown’s concern trolling over porn on Facebook.

          But I never said anything about government powers. Isn’t it funny that REAL libertarians are so hard up for protections of corporations and their liberties, yet shrug off the restraints on individuals that prevent them from suing those corporations for their total lack of candor in their practices.

          We won’t even address that REAL libertarians seem to see genuine criticism by private individuals of those crooked corporations as a threat to their right to operate.

          1. “…shrug off the restraints on individuals that prevent them from suing those corporations for their total lack of candor in their practices.”

            If they violate their terms of contract (or engage in libel), AND the victim of their contract violations (or libel) CAN demonstrate REAL, measurable harm, then sue the contract-violator (or liar) for the harms caused, sounds reasonable to me, and, I think, should sound reasonable to a REAL libertarian! This has been traditional contract law (or libel law) for many years.

            Sensible people also respect your right to CRITICIZE anyone, using your free-speech rights. Criticize, though, is NOT the same as using civil or criminal law (arms of Government Almighty in either case) to punish people, simply because you don’t like what they do or say.

            Classical example to me? Divorce! People should respect their marriage vows! But, outlaw divorce? Punish people for getting divorced? Hell no, don’t go there!

            1. Sensible people does not seem to include leftists or writers at Reason. The former tends to use government or other violence to stifle any opposition. The latter does a whole lot of hand-wringing over private citizens and their opinions, while standing silent at the left stifling their opposition.

          2. PS, I don’t read it as “concern trolling” about the porn itself. The “concern trolling” is about Facebook being FORCED (by laws of Government Almighty) to accept porn posted by its users, that Facebook does NOT want!

            You buy (with YOUR money) a web site, and accept posts. About your hobby of raising rabbits, for example. Porn gets posted, and you can’t take it down, because Government Almighty says so? Now YOUR web site becomes flagged as a porn site, and BOATLOADS of software will flag you “off limits”!!! Hello, what ever happened to YOUR property rights anyway?

    3. Though Trump is gone, the desire to bend the internet toward away from partisan goals is alive and well.

      There, FIFY.

  6. How can you guys have been covering this issue for the last dozen years and still not have the slightest clue what is going on?

    Starting during the Obama administration, the Democrats begin pressuring the big internet companies to do their bidding. They did this from inside and from outside. By the 2016 election, this relationship had become quite formalized.Alphabet Chairman Schmidt from the company called The Groundwork specifically designed to tie into the back of social media companies and manipulate things in order to help Hillary Clinton get elected. It was also at the disposal of establishment Democrats across the board.

    In the same time frame, Obama had been using operation choke point to kill off businesses and people he didn’t like. Businesses that are perfectly legal. Things like check cashing stores, pawn shops, strippers, porn stars and gun stores.

    These two came together during the Trump years as we saw social media companies first “shadow banning” conservative voices – something poo-pooed here as being either a delirium or a fabulation – then just outright censoring any information deemed off limits by the DNC. This was done in coordination with all major print and media companies, such that we saw information detrimental to Biden actively supressed, and lies that were deemed helpful actively promoted.

    Over the last year, things morphed into a Pravda-like world, where expert scientists disagreeing with bureaucrats are banned, and anyone repeating this fact gets banned as well.

    Reason has studiously avoided this issue, with only Soave dipping a toe in this water, joined recently by Stossel, who covered Steven Crowder and his immenent cancellation from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for the crime of accurately reporting information.

    Yet most of Reason continues to parrot the DNC line on this issue, with only slight modifications for “both sides’

    1. This is not a new issue. This push for political censorship took the form of the “fairness doctrine” in the 90’s, as the left fought to silence voices on the right on AM talk radio. None other than Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly attempted to bring this back into law.

      But it has reached a new level due to the revved up propaganda machine combined with the new network of financial pressure brought to bear through the banks and payment processors.

      When they came for Glenn Beck, he was able to, with great difficulty, build his own platform. His reach is greatly reduced, but he makes a good living. The same is true of conspiracy performance artist Alex Jones. But the left has learned their lesson. These people built a following, then they were silenced. It was too late.

      So now they crush voices in the crib. And they block new platforms from existing – see Parlor for an example. Now they will block you on the platforms used almost exclusively by 80-90% of the population, they will block you from publishing a competing platform on the two mobile device architectures, they will block payment processing via any of the large precessors, they will block hosting services and ISP services.

      If you have the resources, you can still find a host and ISP somewhere like Russia or Georgia. And you can exist in a web-only internet where apps rule the day. And if you have a dedicated following, they might support you through micro payments in Bitcoin.

      But you are never going to have the reach to get an effective message out.

      This should be a big deal for everyone, but particularly everyone in the press.

      1. Anthony Fauci just publicly questioned the official story on the Coronavirus origin in a wet market. For the last year, doing that would get you blocked on all major internet paltforms. It would also get your YouTube channel marked with a disclaimer that basically warns everyone that you are a liar going forward… If they allow you to continue.

        Because it fit a political agenda, all reporting on this issue has been supressed. Fact check organizations called scientists who were on the scene and did investigations into the origin “pants on fire” liars based only on Fauci’s evidence-free say-so, despite the presented evidence.

        You will note that Fauci has not been banned.

        Scientists who argued that schools should be open based on CDC statistics were banned. Interviews with them were pulled from all major platforms as “disinformation”.

        This stuff should worry everyone.

        1. But no… We here at Reason are worried about the response to this widespread and pervasive threat to free speech.

          Threatening companies with regulatory penalties if they don’t censor enemies of the DNC is just fine. Trying to figure out a way to stop them from doing the censorship is a horrible threat that must be stopped.

          1. very good post(s)! spot on.

          2. And for all of you mindless spots parroting the “it is a private company line”, please…

            None of these companies took this path voluntarily. Every single one of these major internet platforms was founded on some variation of “information wants to be free”.

            Google was founded with the motto “Don’t be evil” and specifically gained their market share in search by providing relevant and uncurated links, without any ability to pay to play. Advertising was kept clearly distinct from the search results as a matter of policy.

            Facebook had its origins in a rate the freshman app. They had to fight against censorship from school administrators. Their entire ethos was based on this precept.

            Like the other platforms, Twitter fought to avoid being forced to stifle speech of others on their platform. Google fought against the Chinese who wanted them to filter search results. All of them fought against the European Union who also wanted region-specific political censorship.

            Now they are at the forefront of censorship and disinformation. And it is not even for an ostensibly good cause like the ban on Nazi speech in Germany. It is entirely devoted to partisan politics.

            Lawyers have gotten content strikes on YouTube for publishing their analysis of the Ma’khia Bryant shooting and it’s use of force justification… It is deemed violence, or hate speech. Voices that agree with BLM that are actually calls to violence are not censored (yeah LeBron, we are talking about you).

            No company founded on free speech principles is taking these steps because they think it is protecting their brand. There are other forces that play here. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

            But sure, let’s keep worrying about the guys who are being censored complaining.

            1. What other times in United States history have there been people who felt they were being wronged on a wide scale, yet their voices were suppressed? Can any of you think of a time when people might have complained about state or corporate actions that impacted them and found a mainstream media unwilling to publish their complaints? In fact, found such a media openly hostile to their complaints and actively fighting to suppress those voices? It seems there must have been some time when this happened, but I just can’t place it,..

              1. JFC, get a hobby my guy.

                Drank the kool-aid for sure.

                1. Speech recognition makes blathering forth a screed much less labor intensive.

                  1. Cyto, your comments are very appreciated, please don’t listen to raspberryturds.

                    1. Seconded!

                2. I think posting well reflected comments that other people appreciate is a good hobby and more meaningful than whatever the hell you are doing, you fucking pussy. I don’t have Cytos passion for rational exchange anymore, so I just proceed to insult specimens like you.

                  1. “I don’t have Cytos passion for rational exchange anymore, so I just proceed to insult specimens like you.”

                    Wow! DAMNED good thing that we have the “Mute User” button for folks like you, then!

                    1. Awww, sqrlsy wants a safe space. 😀 That’s so cute. We all knew you are in great pain. It’s ok. Go ahead. You can use that button as often as you like my little friend.

                      Also maybe get some aluminum foil, just in case. Kevlar might also be a good idea. Latex would have been good advice for your parents but oh well this is not an ideal world lmao

                    2. ^When you continually defend leftist and mute anyone that calls them on their bullshit, then wonder why you’re called a leftist sympathizer.

                      Just so you know, Tony will not hesitate to line you against the wall with the rest of us.

                  2. Oh no. Some troll has muted you. Whatever shall you do?

                3. Go die in a fire.

                  1. If you ever come around to wanting to work on your sickness, Evil One Junior, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie,
                    People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

                  2. “Go die in a fire.”

                    No thoughts, no fact-based criticisms, just raw, naked hatred and death-lust! Suffering-lust! Just WHAT, exactly, do you think that you will gain by “virtue” of your worship of the Evil One?

                4. Wow – you really nuked all his points with that one!
                  You convinced me…. he’s totally wrong because of … ah,
                  oh yeah … because that version of events is not seen on CNN

              2. You really can’t see the difference between not spending millions of dollars to make a movie that fits the tastes of a specific demographic and spending millions to censor opinions you don’t like on a open and public platform, can you?

                1. No, raspberry can’t.

              3. Jehovah’s Witnesses = Can any of you think of a time when people might have complained about state or corporate actions that impacted them and found a mainstream media unwilling to publish their complaints?

              4. Your comments are spot-on, Cyto.

          3. Couldn’t of said it better myself. Thank you

            1. He, and a few others, are the only reason to continue visiting this rag of a site.

  7. I’ve seen many-many conservaturd posters here lusting after punishing Facebook (for example) for Facebook having “published” a defamatory post (written by a user, not Facebook, of course). Classic “Punish Party A for the Deeds of Party B, and call it justice”.

    Conservaturds lost in the recent POTUS elections, so let’s go take it out on Facebook!

    My boyfriend treats me badly, but I can’t bitch-slap him, ’cause his dick is bigger than mine, he might beat me up some more, so I’ll go beat the dog or the little kid(s) some more!

    Most of us can see that this is a power-pig, punk thing to do, in domestic relations. Why can’t more of us see that it is ALWAYS wrong to “Punish Party A for the Deeds of Party B”? Any answers from ye power-pig punks?

    1. Didn’t read that. Almost as if it was written by an idiot and not worth my time. Huh.

      1. I did read your comment, and it is utterly vapid.

        Only an arrogant asshole would be PROUD enough to BRAG about the fact that it is smart and wise enough to immediately announce that it’s thoughts are superior to thoughts that it hasn’t even read!

        Evil ones do as evil ones are!

        If you ever come around to wanting to work on your sickness, JesseBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie,
        People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

        1. I did NOT read your comment, and it is utterly vapid with an excessively high probability, because I made the mistake to read your comments in the past. Forgive me for optimizing my lifetime a bit by skipping what is highly unlikely to yield anything but bad odor lol

    2. “I’ve seen many-many conservaturd posters here lusting after punishing Facebook (for example) for Facebook having “published” a defamatory post”



        Ooodles of posters here lusting after punishing Facebook for the writings of others!

        See Fkthepostoffice especially. Mad.Casual also.

        1. I’m not reading through 250 comments. You know you can link to specific comments?

          1. Remember when Hihn put a bunch of names on his ‘enemies list’? It was a helpful tool that saved you having to read through nuanced back-and-forth. Akin to being wanted by the Nazis or having a fatwa issued against you for publishing a book.

            I’ve not called for Facebook to be punished for the writings of others. I’ve consistently stated that, since the beginning of the Union, there have always been conflicts between publishers, printers, and creators and that such disputes, in accordance with the 1A, are settled not by Congress, but in court.

            To believe what SQRLSY asserts, you have to violate more than just the 1A. You have to have a presumption of guilt on the part of every FB user; that they are all trolls with no legitimate grounds for complaint and that FB is always acting in good faith. Moreover, you have to assume that the judicial system has no way of dealing with such cases.

            I don’t believe FB should be punished. I believe that complainants shouldn’t be forbidden from bringing cases before the law equally and I believe that Congress shouldn’t be the arbitrator. This latter point is somewhat key to SQRLSY’s idiocy because it exposes the lie. He doesn’t care if Facebook gets punished, he would just prefer the current situation, where Congress does the punishing.

            1. “…he would just prefer the current situation, where Congress does the punishing.”

              Congress (Government Almighty in general) ALWAYS lurks in the background, THREATENING to pass stupid and evil laws! There’s not much we can do besides vote wisely, to keep that in check.

              WHAT IS CONGRESS DOING RIGHT NOW, already, to punish Facebook? Beyond THREATS of micro-management? Citation(s) please! I call bullshit!

              Section 230 is that rare beast where Government Almighty limits its own powers, clearly and simply. Only power-pigs and power-punks want to tear it down… And usually, so that they can PUNISH people that they don’t like!


              1. WHAT IS CONGRESS DOING RIGHT NOW, already, to punish Facebook? Beyond THREATS of micro-management?

                See. Completely willing to look past violation of the 1A *and* overt threats to maintain the status quo.

                1. Idiot! 1A applies to Government Almighty, NOT to private property owners!

                  So what did Congress do in the past, to punish Facebook? Threats to maintain the status quo? How is Section 230 hurting Facebook?

                  1. So what did Congress do in the past, to punish Facebook?

                    Congress shall make *no* law respecting or prohibiting. They don’t have to punish to violate the 1A, they just have to pass a law.

                    Again, looks past the 1A *and* overt threats to maintain the status quo.

                    1. “Congress shall make *no* law respecting or prohibiting.”

                      So then Congress may NOT pass laws that are in AGREEMENT with the 1A? As Section 230 is? Are they even allowed to pass a law that says “We agree with, and support, the 1A”?

                      Show us, on the doll, WHERE Facebook touched you, in a BAD way!

                    2. Are they even allowed to pass a law that says “We agree with, and support, the 1A”?

                      It’s written that way specifically so they can’t pass a law saying “We agree with and support the King’s or the East India Companies’ 1A rights.”, it’s included with the redress of greivances for the same purpose. I’m sorry “Shall make no law” is unclear to you. You’re beyond my help.

                    3. OK, so, then, they are NOT allowed to pass a law that says “We agree with, and support, the 1A”!!!

                      Glad we cleared that up! I hope and pray (to Government Almighty, of course; NOT to GOD; Government Almighty forbid that I should be labelled a “religious fanatic”!) that you are NEVER elected to ANY office that allows you to push ANY of your fascism on ANY poor victims! Also, I hope that you do NOT succeed in getting other people on board with your power-pig-punking ways!


              As I indicated below, either you publish everything or you moderate. Whether you moderate up front, internally, or on the backend via review boards, you still moderate and, moderation being a positive action, makes someone responsible for the moderation.

              End excerpt.
              Translated: Facebook did NOT moderate PERFECTLY! They did not please EVERYONE with their moderation, and so SOME unhappy person has standing to sue! So let’s go SUE them in the courts of Government Almighty! And as the wise ones among us KNOW very damned well, jury trials often go WAAAAY askew! Might as well go play the lottery! The BEST solution is to keep mickey-mouse crap OUT of the courts to begin with! As Section 230 does!

              1. Completely willing to look past the 1A *and* overt threats by Congress because he’s sure the filthy users are already guilty, just waiting to file fraudulent lawsuits.

                Moreover, even buying the premise, unwilling to address the problem of frivolous litigation at its root equally, rather than just continuing disparate protection and threats from Congress.

                1. Hardcopy rags treated unfairly. Fix? Treat Facebook unfairly as well! Wow, what a “fix”! For power pigs, at least! Power pigs need their “fix” every day, of punishing innocent victims!

                  1. Hardcopy rags treated unfairly.

                    Who said anything about hardcopy?

                    Again, looks past 1A *and* overt threats *and* presumption of innocence *and* equality under the law in order to maintain the status quo.

                    1. Hey Power-Pig-Punk… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

                      Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

                      In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

                      Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

                    2. Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE!

                      Typical “That which isn’t forbidden is mandatory.” statist mentality.

                    3. OK, so, then, Casually Madman (oops, Mad-PERSON) favors that ALL should be MANDATED to be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE!

                      Section 230 protects us from this… By protecting us from injustice, we are mandating injustice? Section 230 is mandating WHO to sue WHAT other party? Hello, who hijacked your 3-neuron brain? Can you name me ONE historical case where “punishing Part A for the sins of Party B” EVER led to long-term peace and justice? Hello? Is there anyone IN there?

    3. But have you seen many many many? Maybe even MANY MANY MANY?

      1. Yes, I have! And if I linked to them ALL… Not a ONE power-pig-punk, who lusts after punishing one party for the doings of another, would EVER change their fossilized, evil minds!

        1. Maybe bold “many” next time. And I’m detecting clang association in there.

          I agree that if one does not like FB, don’t use it. All private businesses should have the luxury to act similarly to FB.

          1. “All private businesses should have the luxury to act similarly to FB.”

            Woo-Hoo! Agreement reached! Well done, Sir! (I assume Sir).

            1. Woo-Hoo! Agreement reached! Well done, Sir! (I assume Sir).

              Are you saying trolls should be able to sue Facebook the way they can currently sue a bakery (that is, for pretty much any reason at all) or are you predicating agreement on a lie?

              1. Baker injustice is bullshit injustice. So is punishing “Party A” for the doings of “Party B”. For now, and forever! No matter HOW many times you repeat your Big Lies! YOU are the one advocating punishing Facebook if they chose to moderate, and do NOT moderate PERFECTLY! So YOU want to widely spread “injustice for all”, and increasing the bullshit-level of “lawsuit lotteries”!

                HOW are we going to define your ideal, perfect forum-moderation, by the way?

                1. So is punishing “Party A” for the doings of “Party B”.

                  Universal as policy it’s injustice. But, nominally, the 1A protects such policies from being enacted by Congress. Barring that, no it’s not, determinations of guilt on a case-by-case basis by juries of peers is the definition of justice and has been for the last couple of centuries if not longer. Moreover and just as long, both the baker and Facebook have had equal power to petition the King/their Government/their peers for redress of greivances.

                  The 1A protected against such injustices until you looked pass Congress passing a law, looked past the threats you admit it’s making, and insist that we’re stupid for not preferring to suck the King’s dick. With such predilections, we needn’t ask how you are going to define your special protections good faith deplatforming and simultaneous debanking. The answer is obvious: ‘Zealously!’.

                2. “…and insist that we’re stupid for not preferring to suck the King’s dick.”

                  Section 230 PROTECTS us from over-weening Government Almighty! Plain and simple! HOW is Section 230 “sucking the King’s dick”?


                  HOW are we going to define your ideal, perfect forum-moderation, by the way? By the Magic Wave of YOUR King’s Magic Dick, maybe?

                  1. Section 230 PROTECTS us from over-weening Government Almighty!

                    Who’s us?

                    HOW are we going to define your ideal, perfect forum-moderation, by the way? By the Magic Wave of YOUR King’s Magic Dick, maybe?

                    Already asked and answered. Case-by-case of, for, and by the people. No kings or magic dicks required. Just because you love the King’s dick doesn’t mean the rest of us have to believe it’s magical.

                  2. “Case-by-case of, for, and by the people.”

                    Ever hear of the near-random lawsuit lottery?! Let’s allow ALL cases of “you hurt my baby feelings” to “access” the courts… To sue ANYONE for the doings of ANYONE else! Because, um… Oh, yeah, THAT is why! Because YOUR uncle’s neighbor’s dog’s littermate’s owner’s sister hurt MY baby feelings! AND said sister has WAAAAY deep pockets! And YUUUGE “tracts of land”!

                    WHAT could POSSIBLY go wrong?!? Because, after all, the jury will be of, for, and by the people!

              2. No. That discrepancy should be resolved. The baker’s case was bullshit.

  8. At least we have bipartisanship on this issue, and isn’t that really what matters?

    1. No… We do not have bipartisanship on this issue. That is the lie that helps sell the silence.

      We have one side threatening action if their opponents are not silenced.

      We have the other side threatening action if they continue to be silenced.

      This is not a both sides issue. You have to be intentionally obtuse to believe such nonsense. …. Which is why Matt, ENB and the rest have my hackles up so much. It takes effort to introduce enough cognitive bias into your thinking to see this as a “both sides” issue, let alone as a “primarily Republicans” issue, as seems to be the official editorial stance of Reason.

      1. If Emote (formerly Reason) had a shred of integrity….

        Oh wait.

      2. Additionally, we had bipartisanship on the issue. Cox(R)/Wyden(D) crafted and passed the CDA/S230 with bipartisan support, look where it got us.

    2. Noone is arguing that one side is being scilenced. The r are arguing that they are being scilenced, and the d ar arguing there is not enough silencing. The tech companies who are working with the dems are Truely evil

      1. “The r are arguing that they are being scilenced…”

        Who r are “scilencing” you, crybaby? Those who r are scilenctists? Those who have their PhDs in scilencology?

        Hey whining crybaby… I pay (PAY! With MY money! I OWN!) for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well). I am QUITE sure that a LOT of “tolerant” liberal-type folks at Google etc. would NOT be happy with the types of things I wrote! Yet, if you do a search-string “Scienfoology”, Google will take you STRAIGHT to MY web site, top hit! #1!

        Your whining and crying is (just about ) UTTERLY without basis!

        WHERE is your respect for property rights?! I learned to respect the property rights of others, before I was in the 1st grade! Didn’t your Momma raise you right?

  9. Starting with Media Bias issue #1.

    There is a total difference between the left and right stance/reasons on this. The left wants legal censorship the right wants mandated free speech on private property serving the public.

    The *REAL* issue

    Democratic Politicians used their position of authority to censor speech within private property serving the public without a bill. Obviously they’d like a bill/law to end free-speech but are CURRENTLY ending free speech by request of authority.

    I’m sure with a little half-*ss journalistic investigation it would be found that the left has *bribes* means in the media industry (i.e. corruption). THAT IS THE ISSUE.. THAT IS THE STORY.. Government already has it’s fingers on the media!!!!!!!!!!! That is what needs to STOP…

    Get the Government AWAY from the PRESS!

    1. Obama: ‘Google, Facebook Would Not Exist’ Without Government Funding’
      ^^^^^ The details of that statement is where the STORY IS….

      Why do we have a media controlled by Democratic Politicians. Welcome the USSR printing presses…

      1. Context – This is the same as “you didn’t build that” cuz all good things come from gov’t.

        “I believe in investing in basic research and science because I understand that all these extraordinary companies that are these enormous wealth-generators — many of them would have never been there; Google, Facebook would not exist, had it not been for investments that we made as a country in basic science and research,” Obama said.

        1. So the story well might be; federal bribing the media through back-doors of “science and research” grants. Which is UN-Constitutional and wildly and well-known demonstrated by their chicken-little cries about the sky is falling down “science and research” which has been time proven to be complete B.S.

          And the end-run-around lesson once again — UN-Constitutionally putting Federal government into the USA (suppose to be) free-market.. It’s a repeated story that everyone knows about but many choose to remain ignorant about – at the USA’s own peril.

          Soon their won’t be any more room for the ignorance and the slogan of “Land of the Free” will be acknowledged as the distant memory it really is.

          1. Ayn Rand, “Censorship: Local and Express”

  10. Maybe ending the government/social media political cronyism is one of the few places where a bit of law would appropriate if it limits the power to tip marginal elections?

    Is anyone scared of a little more totalitarianism at this point?

    (I admit this could make me sound like a Tony with a different partisan background)

  11. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE

  12. Trump has already stepped down, why is this still happening?
    The desire of the Internet to turn to partisan goals is gone!

  13. I read a lot of comments that conservatives are being blocked but I see nothing to suggest this is true. I am guessing you have little trouble presenting issues like the debt, defense, law and order, or understandable family values. What I see is that crazy conspiracy theorist seem to get blocked and seem to be upset that they can not spread a bunch of nonsense. Right now the social media firms seem to have it pretty we balanced and I say lets let the status quo ride for a while. It would be nice to have some hard and fast rules, but for now companies seem to be using Potter Steward’s “I know it when I see it” rule and seem to be doing OK.

    Along the lines of “I know it when I see it”, I recently saw a report on the mental toll screening the internet the internet has on those contracted to do such screening. I think the internet is great, but wonder about its value if there is such a dark side. How do you deal with the knowledge that such evil can exist? Especially if you are a young person. At my age you know some of the evil and even that makes you wonder about people as a species. IT must be hard for a person learning this in their twenties.

    1. lmfao… “that conservatives are being blocked but I see nothing to suggest this is true” — As-if blocking the US President wasn’t enough… Partisan ignorance knows no boundaries amongst the left.

      1. How many people do you know who would DEARLY love to know what ex-POTUS Trump says, where he stands on issues, and can NOT find out, because the media has silenced Trump?

        Or do you simply think Trump OWNS the media, and should be able to FORCE them to carry whatever words he speaks or writes?

        1. None. And I’m fine if a private entity practices cancel culture. I also have bo issue for calling them out for it. And it should be available to all private companies. Such as cake bakers.

          Biden promised to end covid on his first day in office. That has not occurred. That makes him a liar. Had FB cancelled him due to making false claims about the pandemic, do you think there would be no government backlash?

          1. I agree with all that you say above. Sad to say, the giant billy-clubs of Government Almighty always lurk in the background! The flavors of the giant billy-clubs change from time to time, but they ALWAYS lurk! Section 230 is one of those all-too-rare laws that actually LIMITS the powers of lurking Government Almighty.

            But it still, as always, lurks!

            (So ye better WATCH OUT!)

          2. I’m not fine with a company creating a contract with its users than wantonly violating it through vague enforcement clauses. I think in that case companies should be sued. 230 has been used to stop those lawsuits. See Meagan Murphy.

            1. If you own a tract of land that on weekends you allow folks to set up tents to sell shit, that’s cool. Maybe you have a vague set of rules. And you decide to not let some vendors sell firearms, or Che shirts or pro-abortion books etc I think you have that right. If they are paying you to use the land, then you should honor the duration of the contract.
              Does FB have a contract? Or a user agreement? And do people pay to get an account? I don’t have FB so I’m ignorant of this.

              1. From Facebook’s web page explaining all these kinds of details, very easy to find:

                We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not responsible for their actions or conduct (whether online or offline) or any content they share (including offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful, and other objectionable content).

                End Facebook import.

                Facebook likes to be free from being held responsible for the doings of others, AND they clearly say as much, but power pigs (excludes Chumby here; Chumby has smarts on this one) don’t want to LET THEM be free of such an obvious injustice!

              2. People pay with data.
                Nothing is free.

                1. For future use? And is that codified in a contract?

      2. The former President is not a conservative so my point stands.

        1. Right; because a DE-Regulation platform couldn’t possibly be “conservative”… URFOS…

    2. I read a lot of comments that conservatives are being blocked but I see nothing to suggest this is true.

      Seen anything new from Steven Crowder on youtube for the past 2 weeks? How about Nick DiPaolo?

      1. It’s a stupid comment. You could hit him in the face with a baseball bat and he would still technically be correct in that, because he had his eyes closed, he didn’t see any bat.

        1. “You could hit him in the face with a baseball bat”

          Forget the mute button. I want this!

      2. But this is kind of the point of M4E’s comment. The times that Crowder has been in trouble with YouTube management, it wasn’t for advocating for standard conservative issues. He didn’t get in trouble for advocating for low taxes or for advocating for Trump to get elected or for advocating against abortion. He got in trouble, first, for making racist statements about a reporter, and second, for engaging in these conspiracy theories about the election (at least presumably so). He got in trouble for being a racist and a kook, not for being a conservative per se. That is why it’s misleading to say “conservatives are being banned by Big Tech”. No, it’s assholes *who also happen to be conservative* that are being banned *for their asshole behavior*, not for espousing canonical conservative ideology.

        1. Good post Chemjeff! Good summary at the bottom of your post!

        2. lmfao again…..! Assuming that 600,000 votes at 94% Biden favor in a swing state is election fraud = conspiracy theory????

          WTF is wrong with you people? Are you really actually more delusional than ALL the bureaucratic PA election committee personnel that ALL laughed out-loud at such wildly ridiculous numbers???

          Soooo — let me get this straight; If Trump so much as runs a border-line favor it must be due to an advertising campaigns in Russia…. “As-if” foreign campaign advertising is just sooooo much worse than actual unbelievable mail-in ballot counts.

          And once again — Ignorance knows no boundaries in the left-leaning.

        3. Why weren’t Hillary Clinton, Dem members of Congress, and countless “news” clebutantes banned from social media for their baseless charges of a stolen 2016 election?

          1. I know! I know! Because Democratic members of congress aren’t really the imbeciles they have proven to be to reasonable people.

            In the utopian delusional mind of registered Democrats they are Sun Gods, Rain Gods, and Money Gods with the almighty godly like powers to “Change Climates” and produce wealth out of this air…

            Democratic Commandment #1 — Thou shall not question the “Gods” and their monopolistic use of Gov-Gun forces.

    3. Because you choose ignorance. There are dozens of examples. There are also many examples from anti T feminists (TERFs) that have also been shut down.

      We can’t help stupid. The fact you choose a blind eye is your choice.

      1. “There are also many examples from anti T feminists (TERFs) that have also been shut down.”

        Tell them to PAY up their OWN money for their OWN web site, and they won’t be shut down! Hello, free market and property rights! Ain’t it WONDERFUL? (Or they can post for FREE right HERE!)

        Go-Daddy for one will be happy to help them out…

    4. This is an eminently retarded take, grandpa.

    5. Crazy conspiracy theories like covid19 originating in a Chinese lab?
      Crazy conspiracy theories like federal agents fabricating evidence and spying on political opponents?
      Crazy conspiracy theories like health statistics being manipulated?

      1. Yeah… the line between conspiracy theory and marginalized speech is getting seriously blurred. Free speech is for the people who say incredibly unpopular things that powerful people don’t like.

      2. I don’t see any suppression of the issues you listed. In fact at least two of them have been on the Reason web site. I would point out there are many crazy conspiracy theories (CST), that while goofy, get plenty of attention on sites. While he is now off FB, the former President sowed the seed of his 2016 candidacy on the CST that President Obama was not a citizen. Anyone can peddling CST, but if you are peddling these theories and you go over the line, you risk being deplatformed.

        1. You’re asking to get dealt with.
          Good luck

          1. You gotta love the balls to cite Reason talking about something as proof that Twitter and Facebook don’t censor those viewpoints.

    6. “I read a lot of comments that conservatives are being blocked but I see nothing to suggest this is true”

      Obviously, because they’re being blocked. You can’t see what isn’t there.

  14. At the same time, Steube’s bill would rescind Section 230’s liability protection for “dominant” platforms that restrict content “pursuant to policies or practices that are not reasonably consistent with the First Amendment.”

    It is not at all clear what that means, since the First Amendment constrains the government, not private businesses. But the bill says the provision should be “broadly construed” to foster “true diversity of discourse” without “discrimination based on viewpoint.”

    Whether or not the legislation is ‘good’ or will produce the results it intends (I suspect it won’t) it seems very clear to me what it means. It means that Steube is attempting to force the dominant platforms into a less-restrictive TOS which mirrors that of the First Amendment.

    1. It means that Steube is attempting to force the dominant platforms into a less-restrictive TOS which mirrors that of the First Amendment.

      If you want to get technical (the best kind of correct!) the 1A says “Congress shall make no law…” not “Congress shall not repeal or mitigate a law…”.

      Once again, the only way ENB’s assessment makes sense is if you, completely counterintuitively in letter and intent, buy into the wet roads assumption where Congress passing a law regulating free speech and the right to petition is consistent with the 1A.

  15. There’s some really weird support for multinational corporations who are only pretending to be American based. They are not. And they are actively undermining our society.

  16. Instead of getting rid of 230 how about we just enforce it. For instance now that Google and facebook have said they make editorial decisions, they can now be held liable for the monetary/reputatuobal damage they cause users. Currently (also formerly) anybody banned because they said the virus leaked from a lab can make the case that Google and Facebook owe them

    1. Instead of getting rid of 230 how about we just enforce it.

      Read the law and the history around it, this is what it’s enforcement looks like. Compuserve didn’t moderate its forums and was found not to be liable for the speech on its platform. Cox/Wyden felt that was wrongly decided. They felt Compuserve should be liable for not restricting speech on their platform.

      Even if you reinterpret it to take protections away from Facebook and Google, the underlying premise of Congress deciding what constitutes free speech (and the good faith moderation thereof) still stands and is free to be reinterpretted (back the other way) in the next Congress or with whatever replaces Google/Facebook.

      The CDA should’ve been stricken down in its entirety. The exception of S230 was an naive, optimistic/idyllic notion that Congress could recognize what constitutes good faith moderation of the internet. A situation that, virtually anywhere else, libertarians and even many lay people/apolitical technophiles would recognize as a farce on its face.

  17. Why is the City of Tacoma driving around at 7:20pm on Thursday night Oct 30, 2014 in a white Mercedes Benz van with no windows, an exempt license plate, with a huge antenna (directional use antenna at that) with police lights on front and back with the City of Tacoma emblem on it? It was going NB on Jackson Avenue then turned lSB on 6th Avenue where two antenna expert signal communications experts notice it and disclosed the information.


  18. I have a question for Section 230 supporters. Normal brick-and-mortar publishers are liable (IP/libel) for what they publish. Even if it’s from an outside source. Why should internet publishers be treated differently from their brick-and-mortar competitors. Now, you can claim that brick-and-mortar publishers should also have this protection. But, oddly, I have yet to see a massive movement by Section 230 supporters to demand it be extended to traditional publishers. So, that seems a red herring. You can claim that the social media giants’ business model is dependent on Section 230 protection. But, it strikes me as wrong to say that, if publishing IP or libel is wrong, as evidenced by the liability for traditional publishers, you’re going to let other players engage in this wrong because their business model is dependent on wrongdoing.
    Section 230 was obviously written over-broadly. It was intended to allow media operating as platforms to operate as such without having to control speech. That’s fair, inasmuch as brick-and-mortar players in the space (e.g. phone companies) also don’t have that liability. But, the social media companies clearly don’t operate in that context. Imagine if your phone call could be interrupted because you violated Verizon’s terms of service with your comments. That’s specifically the space the social media have arrogated themselves to.

    1. “But, oddly, I have yet to see a massive movement by Section 230 supporters to demand it be extended to traditional publishers.”

      There SHOULD be one, dammit! There really SHOULD be!

      Be we (REAL libertarians among us) are fighting a rear-guard action just to defend Section 230! From those who want to SPREAD injustice!

      Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?
      SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!

      This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!

      NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!

      In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!

      WHEN will authoritarians see and acknowledge their power-pig fascism?!?! See an injustice? Fight it, don’t spread it!

      1. So, your argument is “Sure it’s unequal treatment under the law, but since I don’t like the law, I’m willing to see some more equal pigs be exempt from the law.” It strikes me that, if you believe what you’re saying and it’s not just a deflection, exempting the powerful (the social media companies) from the law’s consequences and just going after some other players only compounds the injustice. Rather than just the brick-and-mortar publishers being being unjustly (in your estimation) liable for what they choose to publish, you have the brick-and-mortar publisher unjustly liable and their competitors being give a pass. It seems to me, bad laws unequally applied are worse than bad laws equally applied.

        1. “…exempting the powerful (the social media companies) from the law’s consequences…” Not done now! I hope it stays that way!

          The law (Section 230) currently protects on-line “publishers” from being sued for what OTHER PEOPLE wrote! Now THAT is a simple and good law!

          You know, hardcopy rags often publish editorials from “important people” (Senators, CEOs, maybe even the POTUS from time to time). The rag will preface (add) “not the opinion or stance of this rag”, hoping to fend off groundless lawsuits. GOOD LUCK to them, trying to be greedy-lawyer-proofed till such time that “Section 230 for Hardcopy Rags” is added!

          So shall we sue the NY Times if they publish an editorial by Trump or by Biden? And Trump or Biden writes lies (libel)? Sue the NY Times, and NOT Trump or Biden? On what planet is that “just” or “fair”?

          1. Many people’s problem with the special exceptions for social media lies in the fact that they claimed to be great proponents of free speech. Turns out they’re only okay with some speech.

            If they had just been honest from the start, conservatives or actual free speech proponents could have built meaningful competition.

      2. There SHOULD be one, dammit! There really SHOULD be!

        No, there should be an abuttment of the 1A which is what protected traditional publishers, bakers, and bricklayers equally for 200+ yrs.

    2. The whole platform/publisher dichotomy is a false one IMO when applied to social media. Facebook and Twitter are neither pure platforms nor pure publishers. They are more akin to a private library. A library makes editorial decisions about which books to place into their collection – probably not hardcore pornography – so they are selective, unlike a pure platform, but nevertheless a library is not responsible for the claims made by every author in every book in its collection, as a publisher of that book might be.

      1. You’re basically trying to claim “Schrodinger’s Publisher”. The distinction between publisher and platform is one of control. The law is applied to publishers because they have control of what they publish. It isn’t applied to platforms (e.g. phone companies) because they aren’t supposed to have control over what people say over the phone. Your demand is that they have absolute control over what is published with no responsibility.

        1. Then what is a brick-and-mortar library, in your view? A publisher or a platform? If it’s a platform, then why don’t all libraries have hardcore pornography in its collection? If it’s a publisher, then why can’t I sue a library AS WELL AS the author for defamatory claims in the author’s book in the library’s collection?

          1. There’s a good chance you could sue a private library. It’s just you likely wouldn’t be able to get much from them.

            1. The point is, there are more ways to look at social media other than the binary publisher/platform dichotomy. They are not pure platforms, but they are not pure publishers either. They should not be treated strictly like either one.

              1. If they want control over what gets published, why should they have exemption from liability over the thing they demand control over?

                1. If you host a party in your house, do you reserve the right to eject obnoxious guests, who shout lies at everyone? If so, are you ready to get sued for libel and-or defamation resulting from what a guest of yours said? Hello? Basic common sense of justice, hello?

                  1. The distinction is that I’m not printing my obnoxious guest’s lies for the world to see. If I were, I perfectly well think that I should be held responsible for repeating them.

                    1. Chemjeff is correct about the “control” thing. Right now, we’re all chatting here, and doesn’t have the extra money to spend, to tightly monitor and PERFECTLY control EVERYTHING that gets said right here.

                      To make our private-house-party analogy more accurate and honest, imagine a science fiction future when dirt-cheap housefly-sized drones can fly around and land on the walls or the ceiling, and record all doings for posterity… For DIRT cheap! (Kinda like dirt-cheap PC and internet power today). As a party favor to your guests, you allow them to use your housefly drones data access, that you pay $5 per month for, to record them and their partying, and beam it to the internet, with their consent. And there goes THEIR libel and defamatory speech, right out onto the internet!

                      NOW are you ready to get sued for what THEY said, in YOUR house?

                    2. Warning: The above individual is unstable, manipulative and has an agenda.

                      Some of the errors in the above comment:

                      – The publishing part is skipped. The leftist talks about magically beaming footage to the internet, as if there wasn’t a platform that makes it stay on the internet. The attempted manipulation equates the house owner with the platform. In the world of the leftist above, your pc and wifi router is the platform. He is clearly incompetent.

                      – There is a problem with scale and extend, which the leftist cannot see or ignores intentionally because black and white thinking makes it easier to spread false narratives. Said house party would be a very small platform and not a government adjacent big tech company with a clear agenda and a scary level of power to shape public opinion and election outcomes. It was recently brought up in the Supreme Court that the private status of these companies might have to be rethought.

                    3. “…as if there wasn’t a platform that makes it stay on the internet.”

                      Absolutely NOT needed to sue ANYONE for libel or defamation! Even my SPOKEN WORDS can be the basis for such, if you can convince the jury that I said it!

                      So NOW are you happy to be sued for what ***I*** have said?

                      If you utterly refuse to learn otherwise, I hope someone punishes the shit outta ya for what someone else did, power-pig-punk! Will even THAT experience teach you a damned thing, unjust power-pig-punk?

                    4. It was clear the above commenter couldn’t resist the waves of their own emotions and had to respond, unstable as they are. They have claimed to mute me earlier, however, they can’t even do that right, as they are impotent and unsuccessful.

                      The above leftist has now abandoned the discussion about extremely large scale, quasi-public social media platforms and how they are distinct from a household, as their analogy was shattered and they don’t know what to do. 🙁

                      As they are psychotic and have an inflated sense of their own importance, they will not be able to let go of the pointless pseudo-point they are trying to make using a desolate, schizophrenic fantasy about house fly sized drones (lmfao. Hard.)

                    5. Hey 5.56 power-pig-punk… So your boyfriend has a bigger dick than you do, and abuses you, and you’re afraid to bitch-slap him when he abuses you? You then go and kick the dog? Punish the dog, for your boyfriend’s abuses? How’s that working for ya? Is the abuse stopping yet? Is it adding to “freedom and justice for all”?

                    6. As the above subject is psychotic, it gets hard to discern which mental entities their cryptic imagery is meant to represent. I have to guess they are trying to say that punishing a social media platform is like kicking the dog and the correct addressee for punishment would be the dog owner (government).

                      If this is indeed what the psychotic above is trying to say, they are now changing the subject but are also not denying the role of social media as an obedient government extension which would of course be highly problematic. The analogy would of course be broken so far as a dog has limited own agency and individual coordination and a much higher degree of innocence than a mendacious, censoring social media company led by highly politically influential billionaires.

                      The above commenter is clearly incompetent and hopefully medicated.

                2. For the same reason that librarians are not responsible for every word in every book in the library’s collection.

                  Librarians choose which pieces of literature appear in the library’s collection, but librarians do not have control over every word in every piece of literature.

                  That is the type of control that social media companies have. They do not have control over every word in every post that every user writes. They only have control over which posts appear on their property.

                  So social media companies should not be held responsible for every word that every user writes, because they don’t have that level of control.

                  1. Again, though, a library that was distributing IP or libel might very well be liable. Here’s just one example:

                    1. That case isn’t about defamation. That case is based on the claim that IA doesn’t own the IP rights to the items in its collection. So sure if a brick-and-mortar library had pirated works in its collection then yes it ought to be liable for that, but that is an act of theft, not defamation.

                    2. And I noted IP violations in my comments. You’ll agree, then, that the social media companies should be liable for any IP violations they publish?

                    3. Again show me a successful lawsuit in which a library was sued for being responsible for items in the library’s collection *as if the library was the publisher itself*.

                    4. You’ll agree, then, that the social media companies should be liable for any IP violations they publish?

                      If the company itself publishes pirated works, sure.

                      If users of the company’s resources uploads media that is pirated, then I would expect that those companies would have methods in place to take down those pirated works. That is already the case as far as I know.

        2. The platform/publisher dichotomy is just not a good way to view social media.

          1. It’s a perfectly good way. It’s just a way that doesn’t particularly suit the social media giants. Responsibility (liability) and discretion (control) are properly bound together. That’s been a standard of the law since time immemorial. If the social media companies want absolute control over what they publish, why should they be exempt from responsibility for something they have control over?

            1. A fine argument. Make Twitter liable for facilitating the spread of lies that get people killed and government attacked, and guess which former president isn’t getting his account back any time soon?

              1. Hm, trade Trump in for… BLM, Antifa, anarchists, leftist instigators and all sorts of blue peeps that would lose their account.

                I think you don’t want that deal.

                1. I don’t think you know very much at all.

                  My “deal” is to eliminate for-profit avenues of mass propaganda as major global health threats, but sadly nobody died and made me chief technology officer for Empress Thunberg’s benevolent dictatorship.

          2. The platform/publisher dichotomy is just not a good way to view social media.

            That’s S230’s and the ’34 Comm. Act’s doing and, even then, is a bit of a generalization/mischaracterization. If the FBI thinks your terror cell is plotting an attack, they can legally tap your phone lines and/or make your telco provider shut off service… with a court order. Much the same way they can shut down a bakery or a drug manufacturer… with a court order.

      2. I’d also add that a private library that chose to distribute IP violations and libels would almost certainly be held liable under the law.

        1. Do you have an example of a library being successfully sued for libel based on a book in its collection that the library itself did not publish?

        2. Here is a reference from New York State. A library, simply by owning and/or distributing an item in its collection that is potentially defamatory, cannot be sued for defamation.

          1. From your link:

            Given that, liability for defamation is only actionable if the library (whether or not it adds the documentary to its catalog), promoted or discussed the movie in a way that independently and knowingly renewed a false accusation of the alleged criminal activity.

            1. Yes, so if the library ran an ad campaign along the lines of “go check out this terrific book!” and the book was defamatory then the library would be liable based on the ad campaign. But not based on just owning and distributing the book itself.

          2. So, your argument in support of S230 is that well prior to S230 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cnty. 1945) and despite specifically not being covered by S230 currently, regional courts protected libraries from frivolous lawsuits?

            Oh no Br’er Bear! Don’t toss me into that briar patch!

            1. Regional courts protected libraries from frivolous lawsuits?

              Yes, they did! Ideally, ALL courts EVERYWHERE would protect us from the same! The courts ARE an arm of Government Almighty, and so, it is VERY nice when Government Almighty (once in a blue moon) passes laws like Section 230, protecting us from Government Almighty courts-abuses when power-mad, injustice-lusting EVIL assholes want to use the courts to punish us for what OTHER people have done! When, ever, EVER, in history, was long-term freedom and justice advanced, by punishing the NOT-the-wrong-doer, for the deeds of the wrong-doer?

              Hello? Do YOU need to be punished for MY deeds, before you can understand this VERY simple concept?

              1. ALL courts EVERYWHERE would protect us from the same!

                So, not against all frivolous lawsuits equally; just the ones where Congress decides to violate the 1A, separation of powers, presumption of innocence, right to petition, etc., etc. in order to offer a fig leaf of protection to friendly corporations?

                Not surprised.


                  So tell me how Section 230 “offer(s) a fig leaf of protection to (ONLY) friendly corporations”? Or does it provide protection from bullshit lawsuits, equally, to one and all, perhaps? (Which is what I have been saying all along).

                  MOST of all, PLEASE tell us HOW punishing ONE party for the doings of ANOTHER party, help freedom and justice in the long term? Or are you too busy beating your dog, because your appeal for a bigger welfare check, was denied?

  19. I think the problem isn’t with the individual platforms, which are certainly entitled to make their own rules.
    The problem is when they act in concert to block a certain group of people or message. That ought to incur an anti-trust charge.

    1. Unfortunately, these platforms can do many things that are novel, so public opinion and law will have to catch up. I am glad the discussion has finally begun.

      1. I didn’t read your comment, so therefore your comment is full of shit, and I win the argument!

        Aren’t I the mental giant, 5.56-style?

        1. The above psychotic is clearly triggered. They are also very concerned with mental capacities, intellectual giants and so on. This is a trait of the unsuccessful, who stay fixated on tools (intellect) as they have no results to present.

          1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

            So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

            Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

            Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

            Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

            At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

            Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

            Thank You! -Reason Staff

            1. The triggered fixation remains. Obsessed with talent, success, recognition for their writing. All things they don’t have. The discrepancy between ego hunger and real world outcomes prompts dissociation from reality. The subject seems to think that their copy paste mess impresses anyone.

              1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                Fuck off, spaz!
                You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                Take your meds!
                That’s so retarded!
                You’re a Marxist!
                Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                Trump rules and leftists drool!
                You are SOOO icky-poo!
                But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

                1. The demons and punishers from the past reverberating in the mind of the psychotic after they dropped out of reality. I’m sorry. I wish this never happened to you.

                2. Hey sqrlsy, uhm, so after actually checking out your website I have to say I do feel a bit sorry for making fun of you like that. You must quite often feel misunderstood. I shouldn’t have done the diagnosis belittlement like I did. You remind me a bit of Terry Davis actually. Well, a bit.

                  1. Read … and then the further link at the bottom, about Do_gooders_bad … And THEN you might gain SOME insight into your hate-warped mind!

                    1. I think it’s much less ‘hate-warped’ than you think. I’m not an instance of your oppressor.

                    2. But you clearly lust after punishing “Party A” for the doings of “Party B”. What assurance do you offer me (or my friends or family or other innocents) that I (or they) will NEVER be your innocent “Party A”?

            2. Man, I was gonna say something nice about how you’ve actually engaged in debate and not copypastad your retarded drivel all over the comments and then you have to post this.

      2. A good portion of the problem is the notion that these things are novel. The 1A exists is because of the King’s simultaneous efforts to control what could/could not be published as well as granting special taxation to EIC. ‘Redress of grievances’ is found more than 500 yrs. prior in the Magna Carta.

        The idea that this is somehow new is anachronistic. Might as well tell Rosa Parks to start her own bus company or Martin Luther to start his own monarcho-Papacy.

        1. Well idk, I would say individuals have a novel ability to put signals out there with high levels of reach and immediacy on social media. And such massive streams of collective/public feedback, being filtered in favor of one agenda, that seems to be hard to deal with because I know no precedent to it. The difference is that the agents are often regular people without a clear cut agenda. It is the ultimate useful idiot farm, it utilizes them in innovative ways. And I much rather have useful idiots of all sides be allowed to blather equally.

          1. Well idk, I would say individuals have a novel ability to put signals out there with high levels of reach and immediacy on social media.

            Nope. First, signals (even with replies) aren’t necessarily information. If you polled everyone at 5 min. intervals and every poll the numbers/answers precisely inverted, you’ve arguably wasted every intervening poll.

            Second, in 2000, internet penetration was ~50%, by 2020 it’s estimated at 93%. Do you think 7% of colonists were unaware of The Revolution? In 1920, radio penetration was ~0%, by 1933 “we” were all listening to fireside chats by 1938, we were all freaking out because the Martians were invading.

            It’s not novel, it’s just a continuation of a trend that began in the 1450s, if not the creation of the written word.

            1. Well I think the ability to adjust the amplitude of favored/unfavored social signal at efficiencies magnitudes above fireside chats is sort of novel. And this being in private hands that have clear public goals is also a bit spicy.

              Echo chambers and belief bubbles are another phenomenon that is quite exploitable and I think it was much harder to keep beliefs that isolated even 20 years ago. Also statistical analysis tools to place political messages or ideological programming have a pretty scary precision. An ad can now directly target an individual instead of a group. That’s something no radio or TV can do.

        2. So I think that was what I was trying to say when calling this novel. It’s sort of challenging to declare social media to be common carriers considering the kinds functions they have. Also: “but people don’t have to use social media, just walk away if you don’t like it, they are not that essential, they are not a telephone”.

          Do you think that the redress of grievances part could somehow be interpreted in favor of someone who thinks that their side is being filtered out by soc med platforms?

          1. Do you think that the redress of grievances part could somehow be interpreted in favor of someone who thinks that their side is being filtered out by soc med platforms?

            Yes. I even go so far as to think out loud and the FCC shouldn’t exist. Common carrier issues should be brought up and resolved in a legal area between the courts and de rigueur/common law “legislation”.

  20. If your online company is essentially a publisher, then it’s not entitled to blanket liability protection. There is a clear distinction between Twitter and a used car site with a message board, or a commenting service like Disqus. Disqus does not verify authorship, edit content and amplify certain views.

    The conservatives who target section 230 don’t want to stem the tide for misinformation or facilitate libel lawsuit. They just want the social media sites not to remove viable information that doesn’t violate TOS. The notion that companies selectively censoring information at their whim somehow promotes free speech online is certainly curious.

    If Twitter censors content from black users, should they able to sue them? If I paid for Amazon Prime and they don’t deliver on the features I paid for, should I be able to sue them? Of course. And that reality doesn’t change for big tech. It doesn’t or shouldn’t matter that the service is free.

    Do you believe that big tech can have TOS where they reserve the right to hand out certain browsing activity to governments and companies? We’re talking about simple meta data on THEIR platform, not private information. If you don’t, then you admit that these companies don’t have blanket power over all content on their site.

    1. Amazon Prime Playlist
      Black Cinema — Sue for a “White Cinema”?
      Black Voices — Sue for a “White Voices”?
      Black Love — Sue for a “White Love”?
      Black Lead — Sue for a “White Lead”?
      Black Entertainment TV — Sue for a “White Entertainment TV”?
      Brown Sugar — Sue for a “White Sugar”?

      What is abundantly and undeniably clear is that today’s left is a racist culture. That certain skin-colors are more entitled than others.

      The fact that the same lefty racist culture is out yelling “racist” at everyone else is flat out PROJECTION 100%..

      It’s almost as-if the left believes super-hyper-racist is the solution to racism….

      Ya… They really are that stupid.

      1. Exhibit #2 — We Democrats support National Socialism but the right-wingers are Nazi’s

        Every Dictionary ever written —
        Nazi – an acronym for National Socialism…

        Ya… They really are that stupid.

        1. Exhibit #3 — Democrats believe if the federal prints more money the USA get rich on resources.

          Common-Sense —
          money is nothing but a representation of human labor and resources.

          Essentially the left enacts government slavery by printing the commonly accepted trade of human labor.

          Ya…. They really are that stupid.

          1. Exhibit #4 — Texas looses power in the middle of an Arctic Freeze.

            Typical Democrat on the same day…
            [WE] must fight global warming at all costs

            Ya…. They really are that stupid.

            1. You do understand that 50 years of scientific data isn’t rendered useless because it was cold one day somewhere, yes?

              See the important documentary The Day After Tomorrow. Climate change doesn’t mean it’s always hotter everywhere all the time, silly. It means Jake Gyllenhaal is bringing me take-out and we’re going to have a quiet night in with a little too much wine and…. Sorry what were we talking about?

              1. lmao… Nice trick changing “global warming” to “climate change”..
                lmao… Nice trick using a Hollywood sci-fi movie staring Denis Quaid for your “scientific data”..

                Ya… Tony really is that stupid.

      2. I been getting annoyed with the left racism, but now I just laugh whenever I see them using minorities for their causes. Which is pretty much non-stop.

  21. Nolan-Brown:
    Good review of the legislative proposals.
    But, while I agree it will be a total political failure, this one below sounded just fine to me…..What’s your problem with it? Hell, you write for Reason. So have I. Reason is morally-correct, but politically futile — for now. I support it, too. See you in Park City?

    The owner of a website could eliminate anything it wanted to eliminate. Right? I admit I have not read the bill itself. But who wants a PLATFORM deciding that any time?!

    “The most ridiculous of these proposals is the Protecting Constitutional Rights From Online Platform Censorship Act, sponsored by Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R–Tenn.). His bill would make it unlawful for web services to remove or restrict access to any content protected by the First Amendment. Facebook would have to permit hardcore pornography. YouTube would have to permit videos of beheadings. Web forums for dog lovers would have to permit long odes to cats, or abortion, or rutabagas.”

    Oh! How awful! Unless you are telling me that non-platform owners of websites can’t do that. Please educate me.

  22. Let’s start with principles. What is a laissez-faire approach?

    Incoherent, I feel. Limiting liability is a government handout, for sure, but liability is itself a government-created organizing principle. So if you’re a libertarian who wants to transfer vast portions of the state to courthouses, then we have to make companies liable in courts for the harm their products cause, based on whatever rationale the aggrieved party wants to argue.

    If you’re an anarchist, you have to let everyone fuck as many children as they can Google, I guess.

    A liberal perspective wants to see an orderly and useful internet that does not cause the overthrow of governments, except in those circumstances when it’s a good idea, like some shithole country far away from Washington DC. But you also value a free marketplace of ideas and democratized access to that marketplace.

    You also don’t permit a private company to become so powerful that it is instrumental in whether the United States survives. I personally have no use for Twitter, and Twitter is definitionally a drug delivery system, and I think we could do well enough without it, but if we must keep it for the sake of letting business do what it wants, and breaking it up won’t necessarily solve the problem of cancerous lies that undermine civilization, I think perhaps we come to the pragmatist’s perspective:

    Let them stay big, as sort of quasi-public utilities. Tax the shit out of their owners, for one, but provide incentives for them to self-police. Sit down with the glorified Math Team captains who run the global economy and tell them in no uncertain terms that participating instrumentally in the destruction of the United States is no bueno, no bueno at all.

    Once they’re committed to some semblance of journalistic standards for the crap they permit to enter people’s brain holes, no libertarian should have a goddamn word to say. At least once they figure out that a company censoring you is not the same thing as a government censoring you, according to the first amendment.

    The Republican plan, of course, is to spread quasi-Nazi propaganda until they turn enough of the country into a cult of personality and we can reap all the benefits of fascist authoritarianism. Think there will be free speech in the camps?

    1. Case & Point Exhibit —
      “The Republican plan, of course, is to spread quasi-Nazi propaganda”

      Ya… Tony really is that stupid.

      1. You’re gonna feel so stupid when you stumble across some obscure bit of writing that explains why the Nazis’ most defining characteristic wasn’t their generous social safety net.

        1. That’s how you became so stupid?
          You stumbled across some obscure bit of written lefty propaganda?

          Surely some obscure propaganda that violates every dictionary every written is something to hold onto and live by..

          Ya… Tony really is that stupid.

          1. There’s a phenomenon in the study of human thought known as the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

            Basically, the more you know about something, the less confident you become in your knowledge. As Socrates put it so many years ago, the smartest people know only that they know nothing.

            This leaves humanity in the odd position of having stupid, confident people and smart, questioning people. Pretty much all of politics follows.

            Have you read a single book or article on this subject that wasn’t from a political source?

            1. phenomenon of lefties —

              1) Their constant and horribly-wordy ability to manipulate, spin, deceive, complicate and corrupt the very basic foundations of common-sense and human reasoning and tossing it on it’s head.

              2) Their dedicated faith to follow such non-sense like blind sheep.

  23. Democrats: MOAR censorship or we will punish you.
    Republicans: Act like a publisher, accept liability as a publisher.

    ENB: Both sidezz!!!

    1. VinniUSMC: “Please punish ME for the doings of OTHER people! PLEASE punish MEEEE for what SQRLSY One has posted!”

  24. We just need one good court case to decide that the company is liable when they actively determine content. They are still not liable for the posted content. That is consistent with Section 230.

  25. Though Trump is gone, the desire to bend the internet toward partisan goals is alive and well.

    Particularly at Reason, whose writers strongly support regulatory capture by a few big tech companies.

    And that’s all Section 230 is: regulatory capture.

  26. Well, there is no effective regulation of the Internet today, and how is that working?
    * De-platformings
    * De-financializations
    * Rigged search algorithms
    * IT monopolies pumping out agitprop

    I can see the day coming when REASON itself is thrown off the Internet and has its bank accounts cancelled. On that day, the staff will be standing on soapboxes on Mesmer ginning up ideological rationales to glorify IT monopolies.

    1. how is that working? I don’t know; you tell me since you’re actually allowed to post here without getting a government permission license and I’m actually able to read it since the government didn’t shut it down..

      You do realize Democratic Politicians requested the de-platforming right?? Yes; it’s in most of the non-Nazi news. Names attached. And if you have a business you know darn well when the Gov-Guns come a poking (i.e. request?) you don’t want to defy those pointed guns whether there is law on the books or not. They’ll make-up sh*t — Remember the IRS scandal?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.