Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ja1q0cx wrote

Reply to comment by theannotator in The Supreme Court Actually Understands the Internet by rejs7

[deleted]

2

theannotator t1_ja1skz9 wrote

Not when they claim they aren’t and are allowed to donate funds to political candidates. In an age where whatever google returns to your search on the first page is the truth it does matter if they filter topics, ideas, or statements that aren’t illegal and don’t indicate that it’s biased or an ad. It’s 15 years too late to compete with google as a search engine, 10 years to late for YouTube, and probably already too late for a small chrome competitor. gmail is the odd exception and you can replace it trivially. They are a monopoly just like bell and should be broken.

−2

[deleted] t1_ja1tglg wrote

[deleted]

0

theannotator t1_ja1tun3 wrote

Fox shows don’t get section 230 protections. Your examples do.

1

[deleted] t1_ja1upmj wrote

[deleted]

1

theannotator t1_ja1uwml wrote

But you can’t really go somewhere else in most cases. It’s a monopoly. Kill 230 or carve out these monopolies and you get a more free market approach.

2

[deleted] t1_ja1ve0u wrote

[deleted]

0

theannotator t1_ja1wh0e wrote

Well me hearty, when 98% of the market defaults to you that’s a monopoly. Businesses and the government largely aren’t on the others. Government shouldn’t use a private monopoly of a platform (twitter and YouTube for comma and google for finding info)that isn’t neutral for official communication.

It’s obvious we won’t come to a consensus, but it’s been nice having a discussion that didn’t include ad hominem attacks or bring up certain mustachioed men.

Good day!

0

Valiantheart t1_ja36vj2 wrote

No they can't which is the entire point of this and the other internet related lawsuit at the SC. You are supposed to either be able to host all content and not be held responsible for the actions of its users or actively curate it and be responsible for its content. Not both simultaneously.

0