Jim Just to be clear, the Section 230 case has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  That case is based solely on interpreting Section 230 to determine that these companies are "publishers" within the meaning of the statute so that they can be held liable.  That's probably not a good idea, but you're not going to figure that out until we make the mistake of endorsing it.The First Amendment applies to online platforms having policies regarding content moderation.  If these places were truly an "open forum for anybody to say anything they want," then this case wouldn't exist.  So I appreciate that you don't like social media.  Neither do I.  But ironically, you're spouting misinformation in an attempt to argue that these platforms should be held responsible for your inability to fact-check what you say before you post it.

Jim Just to be clear, the Section 230 case has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  That case is based solely on interpreting Section 230 to determine that these companies are "publishers" within the meaning of the statute so that they can be held liable.  That's probably not a good idea, but you're not going to figure that out until we make the mistake of endorsing it.The First Amendment applies to online platforms having policies regarding content moderation.  If these places were truly an "open forum for anybody to say anything they want," then this case wouldn't exist.  So I appreciate that you don't like social media.  Neither do I.  But ironically, you're spouting misinformation in an attempt to argue that these platforms should be held responsible for your inability to fact-check what you say before you post it.

user
yes
assistant