Anonymous ID: e3e325 Aug. 26, 2024, 6:09 a.m. No.21483996   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4055

>>21483961

there is a caveat anon. Not saying Jim does but when the government pressures a website to silence dissenting political speech there could be an issue, as with Twitter at the time. It may also take the form of how section 230 and how the semantics work with publisher vs platform. The defense against either changes as well. Then you must consider the Brandenburg test as to if it is a true threat.

Anonymous ID: e3e325 Aug. 26, 2024, 6:26 a.m. No.21484103   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4250

>>21484055

You may even be able to make the arguement, not that courts matter either, but that government actors manipulating SM to provoke and instigate responses that may or not be considered reasonable because of the environment and conditions it was said. Be like a cop pulling you over for speeding when they have been tailgating you for a mile. I think I agree with your assessment of 230, If it was a publisher, editor would make sense as a duty to protect the publication. Newspaper for instance. But when they are a platform they should not be acting as an editor, IE deleting posts. There are some limitations of course, but generally a platform should not have the right to censor speech. No matter how rude, arrogant offensive or repetitive it may be.