Zenith Returns

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@SergioVengeance > Twitter reserves the right to reject the government and their requests

And the government reserves the right to remove the protections which allow Twitter to operate.

You’re a damn fascist.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@TruthseekerHT Ironic, isn’t it? I have an irrefutable argument against Section 230, yet no one will ever hear it because of Section 230.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

This is the only way for me to engage with you at the moment due to X limitations and the fact that I’ve been engaging with all of you simultaneously.

You’re looking for an out.

[Hunter2 @Boscatoad]

@Zenith_Returns @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral Also, I ain't doing this quote tweet bullshit anymore. Either nut up or shut up.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

Well… No reason to pay federal taxes any longer. SCOTUS just ruled away both our elections and sovereignty.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@bartofthehouses @EricLDaugh @mymomcare Economics isn’t politics.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@EricLDaugh @mymomcare Money and power.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Where’s the post? Just default to posting it.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino ‘Legal substance: weak’ is ChatGPT predicting how courts currently rule. That’s not the question. The question is whether the statute is internally coherent. You can win in court under a law that contradicts itself. That’s not a defense of the law, it’s the problem.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino The response to this reply, silly.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino GPT just described the contradiction while explaining why it isn’t one. ‘Same act treated as editorial judgment for 1A and not treated as publication under §230.’ That’s Contradiction 1. On the chart. Verbatim.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Both already addressed. Halleck is state action doctrine, not the statutory question. Lloyd narrows Marsh on government compulsion. Neither overturns it. Marsh still stands… And this is your concession per the rule. Multiple times now.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @Boscatoad @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Take a guess. I’m genuinely curious.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Boscatoad @Lormif1 @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino What do you think I do for a living? What are my credentials? Curious to know.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Go ahead and show me the response to my reply.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino If you say so.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @Boscatoad @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino If you say so.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino GPT just described the contradiction while explaining why it isn’t one. ‘Same act treated as editorial judgment for 1A and not treated as publication under §230.’ That’s Contradiction 1. On the chart. Verbatim.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @Boscatoad @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Correct on state action doctrine. Conceding that doesn’t touch Contradiction 3, as stated repeatedly. The tension is statutory: Congress used forum language to justify immunity while courts refuse the obligations that implies. State action was never required.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Cool.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @DavidStonesFan @bartofthehouses @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino You confirmed it’s legally coherent but not logically coherent. That’s the argument. ‘Normatively unsatisfying’ means something real is wrong. Zeran still collapses your table. The editorial decision is the same object in both claims. Logic doesn’t answer to doctrine.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @Boscatoad @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Agreed. Control, not ownership. Now: social media operates under §230, FTC oversight, COPPA, FOSTA-SESTA, and state consumer protection law. That is government control over the conditions of their operation. ‘Not controlled by government’ is simply false.

[Zenith Returns @Zenith_Returns]

@Lormif1 @bartofthehouses @DavidStonesFan @Boscatoad @SergioVengeance @TmthyPatrick @GAUCentral @DC_Draino Privately controlled? They operate under a federal statutory framework that directly conditions their liability, FTC oversight, COPPA, FOSTA-SESTA, and state consumer protection law. §230 itself is government intervention. ‘Private’ doesn’t mean unregulated. Marsh v. Alabama.