Definitely closer to Troll than Hawk or Goblin. We're not suppose to post that sort of content, though. We're not supposed to notice these things.
Mine:
https://twitter.com/Job4_2/status/1379105247608639494
@Job4_2
.@JackPosobiec
is a fraud. Source is not a judgement. The USSC has not declared Section 230 unconstitutional. Thomas suggests the solution to digital platforms is treating the largest ones (FB, Twitter, Google) as common carriers & regulating them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Not an argument.
He correctly rebukes Poso's account of the the 230 story because Poso's take is obtuse inasmuch as protecting freedom of speech; which it currently does, but there are issues. The heart of the issue is, Social media platforms are private companies, and have the right to decide what's allowed/disallowed on their platforms. That's full stop right there.
Where people push IBOR and killing/gutting section 230 is the selectiveness in social media's bans. But doing so allows the companies the ability to exercise their own free speech in distilling speech on their own private platforms. Did I mention that these companies are privately owned? Did some anons also suggest for years that Q take this platform, specifically, and make it a ".gov" in order to continue the discussion safely since there was zero movement on section 230, and absolutely no progress on IBOR at all?
People that pushed IBOR and failed to get it to have any traction are now 100% anti-Section 230, and that's the ONLY protection for free speech that sites like IBs have. Section 230 allows companies protections from lawsuits over responsibility of content posted by individuals exercising their freedom of speech. It's also rife with abuse from people that are pushing the limits of law/speech; especially as it pertains to pornography.
Repealing section 230 will destroy free speech on most platforms. Trump's treat to launch a social media platform has brought the 230 conversation back into the limelight (as in, now that Trump is launching one, section 230 defenders like Zuckerberg are pushing to have it repealed). If Q and @POTUS wanted IBOR, they should've made it happen while he was in charge.
It became a fucking mess, and even Poso cannot deny that. Of course, he's a little preoccupied with calling people heretics for having a mind to follow their own hearts/research regarding other truths in this world, so nothing really surprises me anymore.
Clarence Thomas knows what's at stake, and has made a very originalist statement re: the problem with Big Tech and their interpretations of free speech. Repealing Section 230 would be tossing the baby out with the bath water to spite a few large platforms while dismantling any protections for any platform hosting board where people enjoy free speech.