Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[bripat9643]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If they edit, they become publishers and become liable for what they publish. They created rule 230 to protect common carriers from what their users submit. They function as common carriers only if they don't edit what they publish. That's the definition of a common carrier, like the phone company.

Common carriers never had legal liability. Section 230 didn’t make that happen and it has nothing to do with common carriers. You are confused.

You lack the capacity to commit logic. I'm done arguing with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

decades of conservative jurisprudence,

Such is the hypocrisy of conservatives.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If they edit, they become publishers and become liable for what they publish. They created rule 230 to protect common carriers from what their users submit. They function as common carriers only if they don't edit what they publish. That's the definition of a common carrier, like the phone company.

Common carriers never had legal liability. Section 230 didn’t make that happen and it has nothing to do with common carriers. You are confused.

You lack the capacity to commit logic. I'm done arguing with you.

Nope. Lack of logic is on your side.
You think section 230 protects people from something that they wouldn’t even need.

If they didn’t edit, they’re not publishers. If they’re not publishers, they’d have no legal liability. Therefore, you’d concept of what section 230 does makes no sense since there’s no reason for it to exist in the first place.

 

[colfax_m]

decades of conservative jurisprudence,

Such is the hypocrisy of conservatives.

They’re not conservatives anymore. They’re whatever Trump tells them to be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They’re not conservatives anymore. They’re whatever Trump tells them to be.

Respectfully disagree.

This is what conservatives have been for decades – Trump was merely a byproduct.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Exactly the opposite is the case.

If they didn’t act as editors, they wouldn’t need section 230 in the first place. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wrong, turd. Relieving them of legal liability for what their users post relieves them of the need to edit. Publishers have always had the right to edit their content. Only common carriers don't have the right to edit their content.

If they didn’t edit, they’d have no legal liability to be relieved of.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.

If they edit, they become publishers and become liable for what they publish. They created rule 230 to protect common carriers from what their users submit. They function as common carriers only if they don't edit what they publish. That's the definition of a common carrier, like the phone company.

Common carriers never had legal liability. Section 230 didn’t make that happen and it has nothing to do with common carriers. You are confused.

You lack the capacity to commit logic. I'm done arguing with you.

Nope. Lack of logic is on your side.
You think section 230 protects people from something that they wouldn’t even need.

If they didn’t edit, they’re not publishers. If they’re not publishers, they’d have no legal liability. Therefore, you’d concept of what section 230 does makes no sense since there’s no reason for it to exist in the first place.

You lack the capacity to commit logic. I'm done arguing with you.

 

[dblack]

Discrimination is a fundamental human right.

Maybe to Nazis.

Not so much. Freedom of association wasn't on their platform.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would I research to support your claim, asshole? That's your job.

Funny how you expect other people to do research to support your claims.

I don't, dumbass. I expect you to support your claims. That means you do the research, not me.

 

[colfax_m]

Why would I research to support your claim, asshole? That's your job.

Funny how you expect other people to do research to support your claims.

I don't, dumbass. I expect you to support your claims. That means you do the research, not me.

That’s exactly what you do.

I support my own claims, and you chose not to read them. YAWN

 

[bripat9643]

Why would I research to support your claim, asshole? That's your job.

Funny how you expect other people to do research to support your claims.

I don't, dumbass. I expect you to support your claims. That means you do the research, not me.

That’s exactly what you do.

I support my own claims, and you chose not to read them. YAWN

No you don't, asshole. You demand that I do your research.

 

[colfax_m]

No you don't, asshole. You demand that I do your research.

Last time you asked me for a source, i provided multiple and you didn’t even read them.

GFY

 

[bripat9643]

No you don't, asshole. You demand that I do your research.

Last time you asked me for a source, i provided multiple and you didn’t even read them.

GFY

I'm not going to read through 1000 word articles searching for the evidence that you claim is in there. Quote the material that you claim supports your point. Otherwise just admit you're wrong and slink away.

 

[colfax_m]

No you don't, asshole. You demand that I do your research.

Last time you asked me for a source, i provided multiple and you didn’t even read them.

GFY

I'm not going to read through 1000 word articles searching for the evidence that you claim is in there. Quote the material that you claim supports your point. Otherwise just admit you're wrong and slink away.

The entire article as evidence of the claim.

It was the sole subject of the pieces.

Jesus you’re lazy. No wonder you’re so poorly informed.

(Oh, and I did quote relevant sections too).

 

[bripat9643]

No you don't, asshole. You demand that I do your research.

Last time you asked me for a source, i provided multiple and you didn’t even read them.

GFY

I'm not going to read through 1000 word articles searching for the evidence that you claim is in there. Quote the material that you claim supports your point. Otherwise just admit you're wrong and slink away.

The entire article as evidence of the claim.

It was the sole subject of the pieces.

Jesus you’re lazy. No wonder you’re so poorly informed.

(Oh, and I did quote relevant sections too).

Bullshit.