[ExI] Section 230 and Antitrust
sparge at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 12:21:23 UTC 2021
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:24 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> So why are not the Feds investigating this?
How do you know that they aren't?
> Is that not collusion by a
> cartel to monopolize an entire sector of a market that SHOULD be free?
Until you have evidence of collusion it's best to assume that these
companies were reacting to the same problems with Parler.
By the letter of the law of Section 230 of the Communications Decency
> Act, Parler did nothing wrong and cannot be held liable for the
> content generated by its users.
Section 230 doesn't mean Parler did nothing wrong, it just means they can't
be held legally responsible for their content. Section 230 might have
protected Amazon, Google, et al, but that doesn't mean they're compelled to
continue supporting a platform they consider not worthy of their support.
> Who gave a small cadre of billionaires
> the right to decide what constitutes acceptable speech on their own
> platforms AND everyone else's?
They don't control "everyone else", only those who use their services. If
Parler didn't want to allow the possibility of their services getting
yanked, they could have bought their own servers. They still could have had
trouble finding an ISP that would support them. But Parler wasn't
particularly well run and didn't appear destined for a long run.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat