Multinational Corporations Collude in US Elections

[Charlotte96]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

The Left and the media don't care about foreign collusion in our election if that foreign collusion is to help Democrats, such hypocrisy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

I'd never sue you for that

Thank God.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Synthaholic]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

The Left and the media don't care about foreign collusion in our election if that foreign collusion is to help Democrats, such hypocrisy.

This is just a lie.

 

[Synthaholic]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

Who openly advocates a position? FFS, it's like pulling teeth around here. Spit it out, son. Ain't got but so much time to devote to cleaning conservatives' clocks these days.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

Who openly advocates a position? FFS, it's like pulling teeth around here. Spit it out, son. Ain't got but so much time to devote to cleaning conservatives' clocks these days.

LOL! You couldn't clean a clock with a magic rag & an instruction manual. Look at the public statements of the leadership of these companies. They openly advocate a position. Now see the suppression of Beijing Bidens corruption facts while promoting unfounded "anonymous sources" attacking Trump or another Russian collusion hoax. This is clear advocacy by action. Of course, facts are not your friend. Go spout your nonsense to someone who doesn't know better.

 

[Norman]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

There would be aggressive crying if the leftist bullshit that no one cares for got censored.

 

[busybee01]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

They are not publishers. Publishers enter into contractual arrangements to disseminate information. They have every right to determine what goes on their platform. It is not censorship. You people are already making excuses for Trump's loss.

 

[Norman]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

They are not publishers. Publishers enter into contractual arrangements to disseminate information. They have every right to determine what goes on their platform. It is not censorship. You people are already making excuses for Trump's loss.

He did not pass the IQ test. Got even the name wrong.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

They are not publishers. Publishers enter into contractual arrangements to disseminate information. They have every right to determine what goes on their platform. It is not censorship. You people are already making excuses for Trump's loss.

Both Trump & Biden have called for eliminating the section 230 protections. And it is absolutely censorship. And Trump is going to crush this election. You will be crying. Again

 

[Norman]

The collusion is real folks. Facebook's and twitter's censorship of Biden's email scandal that is.

THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less. Twitter claimed that the Post article violates its so-called “Hacked Materials Policy,” which it says permits “commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves”; in other words, Twitter allows links to articles about hacked materials but bans “links to or images of hacked material themselves.”

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor

Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

theintercept.com

Do look at the rationale Twitter and facebook offered... the "hacked materials policy". Somehow president Trump's illegally obtained tax returns were not covered by the policy, how is that? Oops. At this point the discussion relating to 230 is moot, clearly they are a publisher and need to be regarded as such. The discussion should be how to prosecute the treasonous traitors behind the election collusion.

They are not publishers. Publishers enter into contractual arrangements to disseminate information. They have every right to determine what goes on their platform. It is not censorship. You people are already making excuses for Trump's loss.

Both Trump & Biden have called for eliminating the section 230 protections. And it is absolutely censorship. And Trump is going to crush this election. You will be crying. Again

Depends, if he bet bigly on Trump, he will be smiling and driving to celebrations in Lamborghini with the rest of us.

As important as voting, is betting. Saving the country is important, but if you can simultaneously make big bucks, that is even better. Bet Trump!

 

[Synthaholic]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

Who openly advocates a position? FFS, it's like pulling teeth around here. Spit it out, son. Ain't got but so much time to devote to cleaning conservatives' clocks these days.

LOL! You couldn't clean a clock with a magic rag & an instruction manual. Look at the public statements of the leadership of these companies. They openly advocate a position. Now see the suppression of Beijing Bidens corruption facts while promoting unfounded "anonymous sources" attacking Trump or another Russian collusion hoax. This is clear advocacy by action. Of course, facts are not your friend. Go spout your nonsense to someone who doesn't know better.

You haven’t showed:

• What special privileges social media companies like Facebook and Twitter are getting that US Messageboard is not.
• Why any of the three should have 230 revoked.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Facebook and Twitter execs had hundreds of meeting with the Obama (Soros) White House. They cooked up deplatforming their "enemies" (that's us)

Then use Parler. Ain't free enterprise great?

Free enterprise is great! I support the principle of a company running its operations as they see fit. Just remove that false "platform" designation & revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

Why should either happen?

By either, are you talking about free enterprise & revoking the 230 protections?
The protections from lawsuits should be lifted because, despite the "platform" designation, both FB & Twits act as publishers & actively censor speech that does not follow a preferred narrative. This censorship allows them to not only control, but also influence public discourse to fit an agenda on 2 of the largest platforms available. Through shadow banning, "fact checking", biased search algorithms & outright falsehoods they exercise undue & unchecked abilities to sway an ignorant electorate towards a desired outcome.
As far as why have free enterprise happen, that's a tough one. Off the top of my head I would say it has proven that it far exceeds any other economic system in reducing poverty levels while raising the overall standard of living for the greatest number of people and ensuring the highest levels of personal freedom & accountability. Other than that, I'd have to think about it.

Reading is fundamental. 'Either' refers to:

1. remove that false "platform" designation
2. revoke section 230 protections against libel as a publisher.

1. I don't know what you're referring to.
2a. You're pulling this publisher nonsense out of your ass.
2b. Are you advocating that CrusaderFrank should be able to sue USMB because of something insulting I post?

No, I'm in favor of taking away protections from "platforms" that openly advocate a position. A platform is for neutrality & freedom to make your own judgement as to what you choose to believe. Of course, since the interference & censorship seems to mainly benefit a certain POV you seem to prefer, you will fail to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the double standards employed.
I have no doubt you would be screaming foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

Who openly advocates a position? FFS, it's like pulling teeth around here. Spit it out, son. Ain't got but so much time to devote to cleaning conservatives' clocks these days.

LOL! You couldn't clean a clock with a magic rag & an instruction manual. Look at the public statements of the leadership of these companies. They openly advocate a position. Now see the suppression of Beijing Bidens corruption facts while promoting unfounded "anonymous sources" attacking Trump or another Russian collusion hoax. This is clear advocacy by action. Of course, facts are not your friend. Go spout your nonsense to someone who doesn't know better.

You haven’t showed:

• What special privileges social media companies like Facebook and Twitter are getting that US Messageboard is not.
• Why any of the three should have 230 revoked.

Showed? Do you mean shown? Interference in a US election is cause for revoke. Those protections exist as long as it is a truly neutral platform. Obviously, that hasn't been the case for Twits, FB, Google or YouTube for a long time. You can deny it all you want but it still does not negate these clear facts. You wouldn't get it. Shocking