Orogogus wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 17:17:
I was under the impression that this was the endgame of conservatives' proposed revocation of the CDA's Section 230 protections. Removing those protections wouldn't prevent censorship, it would make censorship mandatory since otherwise platforms would be sued for illegal content. So that was something I didn't really get, since conservatives were already complaining about censorship. Were they hoping to take antifa offline, or was it just a way to stick it to Big Tech regardless of the result?
I don't know what their exact aim was, other than being able to sue if they felt there was some sort of bias.
Just to be clear... technically, I am registered non-partisan and I'm a fiscal conservative... In other words, I am anti-spending outside of government's means, yet pro-choice, for example.
I don't agree with revoking 230.
I do agree with revising 230 to define more in depth of what is a publisher vs. not. It's too vague.
I actually agree with Zucker-head (as much as I think he's a pompous ass) that the companies should not be left to police themselves or figure it out for themselves (As far as speech is concerned).
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!