The tech giants are a conduit for fascism

[MindWars]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

 

[Skylar]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

 

[Skylar]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

 

[Skylar]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

Are they a platform or a content provider?

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....I don't think you've read the constitution either. As no where does it obligate Facebook to host anything. Or even mention Facebook.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A second former Amazon employee would spark more controversy. Deap Ubhi, a former AWS employee who worked for Lynch, was tasked with gathering marketing information to make the case for a single cloud inside the DOD. Around the same time that he started working on JEDI, Ubhi began talking with AWS about rejoining the company. As his work on JEDI deepened, so did his job negotiations. Six days after he received a formal offer from Amazon, Ubhi recused himself from JEDI, fabricating a story that Amazon had expressed an interest in buying a startup company he owned. A contracting officer who investigated found enough evidence that Ubhi’s conduct violated conflict of interest rules to refer the matter to the inspector general, but concluded that his conduct did not corrupt the process. (Ubhi, who now works in AWS’ commercial division, declined comment through a company spokesperson.)

The Tech Giants Are a Conduit for Fascism


The pigs of society try to control and dictate the people who these assholes don't agree with or planing don't like what they say . That's what mental leftist nuts do like Mark Z stole facebook off his college friend. Pasty ass bastard .

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

 

[Skylar]

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

Are they a platform or a content provider?

Its your argument. You're the one citing Section 230.

Make your argument with the statute. Don't tell me *about* Section 230. Quote it showing us where Facebook is obligated to host anything.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to back your babble about 'constitutional protections'. Which amendment limits Facebook again?

 

[Skylar]

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

 

[MindWars]

You don't have to use facebook. You get that, right?

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

Are they a platform or a content provider?

They are two faced fk liars is what they are LOL . FACE = . F . BOOK = B . INCORPORATED = FBI ahahh

 

[MindWars]

lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Facebook agreed to Section 230 of the Communications Act, and said they were not going to regulate and monitor speech on the platform in exchange for being freed from liability. You get that right?

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

Are they a platform or a content provider?

They are two faced fk liars is what they are LOL . FACE = . F . BOOK = B . INCORPORATED = FBI ahahh

Facebookburning

 

[Skylar]

Here's section 230 of the Communications act.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show me anywhere in Section 230 that limits any online services ability to 'regulate or monitor speech' on their own platform. There's no statutory requirement for Facebook to host *any* content.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with Fascism. "Fascism" is just a pejorative that the ignorant throw around to make their claims sound especially menacing. Like how the President uses the word 'treason'.

Its meaningless.

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute. So far, nothing you've quoted has backed your claims. And have abandoned any talk of 'constitutional protections'. You can't even name the *amendment* that would be violated if Facebook removed content.

So much for the silly babble about 'fascism'.

You guys get that Facebook is entirely voluntary, yes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, the linked and unread Section 230 begins by stating the importance of an open social media

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

and in an effort to keep it that way, they offered:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

FB and other Liberal Fascists availed themselves of the protections in C and violated the tenets of A

Break up Facebook!

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute. So far, nothing you've quoted has backed your claims. And have abandoned any talk of 'constitutional protections'. You can't even name the *amendment* that would be violated if Facebook removed content.

So much for the silly babble about 'fascism'.

You guys get that Facebook is entirely voluntary, yes?

Are they a platform? Yes or no

 

[Skylar]

And nothing you quoted obligates Facebook to host ANYTHING on its platform.

Nor even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You never read Section 230, did you?

As for 'constitutional protections', which amendment obligates Facebook to host content? And what is the first word of that amendment?

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute. So far, nothing you've quoted has backed your claims. And have abandoned any talk of 'constitutional protections'. You can't even name the *amendment* that would be violated if Facebook removed content.

So much for the silly babble about 'fascism'.

You guys get that Facebook is entirely voluntary, yes?

Are they a platform? Yes or no

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute.

You're the one citing Section 230. Don't tell me about Section 230. Quote it obligating Facebook to do host *anything* on its platform. Or even mention 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You can't. Just like you couldn't tell us what amendment the 'constitutional protection' that Facebook violated is located in.

You blinked. You're done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know you never read it, you only posted it because I highlighted it. Have you read it, or found someone - a grown up, to read it to you?

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute. So far, nothing you've quoted has backed your claims. And have abandoned any talk of 'constitutional protections'. You can't even name the *amendment* that would be violated if Facebook removed content.

So much for the silly babble about 'fascism'.

You guys get that Facebook is entirely voluntary, yes?

Are they a platform? Yes or no

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute.

You're the one citing Section 230. Don't tell me about Section 230. Quote it obligating Facebook to do host *anything* on its platform. Or even mention 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You can't. Just like you couldn't tell us what amendment the 'constitutional protection' that Facebook violated is located in.

You blinked. You're done.

They alleged that they were an impartial and should not be held to account; they were providing a PLATFORM , not regulating content.

But now, they regulate content - all Fascist do

 

[Skylar]

And no where, in anything you've posted from Section 230 does it say anything about Facebook being obligated to host anything. Or even mentions 'regulate or monitor speech'.

Show me, don't tell me.

Are they a platform?

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute. So far, nothing you've quoted has backed your claims. And have abandoned any talk of 'constitutional protections'. You can't even name the *amendment* that would be violated if Facebook removed content.

So much for the silly babble about 'fascism'.

You guys get that Facebook is entirely voluntary, yes?

Are they a platform? Yes or no

Its your argument, you tell me. Show us the evidence, quote the statute.

You're the one citing Section 230. Don't tell me about Section 230. Quote it obligating Facebook to do host *anything* on its platform. Or even mention 'regulate or monitor speech'.

You can't. Just like you couldn't tell us what amendment the 'constitutional protection' that Facebook violated is located in.

You blinked. You're done.

They alleged that they were an impartial and should not be held to account; they were providing a PLATFORM , not regulating content.

But now, they regulate content - all Fascist do

You're still talking *about* Section 230. No one cares what *you* think about it. Show us IN THE ACTUAL LAW, where Facebook is obligated to host any content, from anyone.

Don't tell us about Section 230. Show us.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Show us, in the law, where it says 'regulate or monitor speech' or obligates Facebook to host any content.....you know, the beating heart of your entire argument that you've now abandoned?

Oh, and for giggles, try again on which 'constitutional protection' that Facebook is somehow violating, supported by which amendment. Another of your claims you've wiped your ass with and flushed down the rhetorical toilet.

Demonstrating that you have as much regard for your argument as I do.