Publius

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@unaggregate @AriCohn If my amendments to 230 were enacted, most people would see no difference in the internet, except most platforms will allow users more control of the content they see.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@AlvaroIM77 @AriCohn Yep. Because of 1A. But the topic at hand is Section 230.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@UnhitchingHour @Eodyne1 @AriCohn Yep. On that we completely agree. The topic at hand is 230.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@SuaSponte2020 @AriCohn Perhaps the problem is your head is stuck up his ass. You have no chance convincing anybody of anything since you can't construct a coherent argument in response to what is actually being said.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@AlvaroIM77 @AriCohn They should have free speech. They do have free speech. And that would be true no matter what happens with 230.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@Icepick87 @AriCohn What the fuck is wrong with you? Here is what I said. All I Saud was that that the intent was to overrule Prodigy. The problem with you trolls is you don't read what people actually write.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@UnhitchingHour @Eodyne1 @AriCohn Nope. Twitter can do what it wants. It can censor that content for you.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@NastyCanasta06 @AriCohn Still deflection.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@adam93452 @Agent_V12 @Jereme45 That is your talking point to try and defend the status quo, but you are certainly wrong. Tech companies like to make money. If 230 was never enacted, Twitter would still exist and implement alternative policies to avoid liability.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@Icepick87 @AriCohn Yes. You literally just agreed with me.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@AlvaroIM77 @AriCohn Now try to read more carefully. You left out the key words in the sentence.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@SergioVengeance @Agent_V12 @Jereme45 Yes, but they aren't held liable under 230 when they defame people through their editorial decisions.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@NastyCanasta06 @AriCohn So why does the case say Prodigy can be liable because it moderates some content, if that is not part of the ruling? Again, join us in reality.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@SuaSponte2020 @AriCohn And nobody here claimed it mentioned the First Amendment. The claim is it was designed to promote free speech or more open platforms. And look at that, the findings are 100% consistent with that.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@NastyCanasta06 @Eodyne1 @AriCohn The government is not forcing any platform to post or not post anything. Hence, there is no 1A issue. Join us in reality.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@NastyCanasta06 @AriCohn You are projecting again. Nothing you said refutes anything I said. You are triggered because your question was a red herring. And the court ruled Prodigy could be liable for defamation based on user content because it moderated some content.

[Publius @CalFederalist]

@SendAliensToMe @AriCohn What a witty retort.