I assume this is an attempt to set a precedent for the repeal of Section 230 and the rolling nationalization of all large US social media platforms and regulation through a body like the FCC, something the right and many people on HN have been clamoring for.
Any platform with more than some arbitrary number of users which accepts and displays user submitted content will be required to post all legal content and will be prevented from moderating legal content without a court order.
I don't know why they bother, they won after all. Despite all of the "COVID oppression" they complain about, their views are now mainstream and an anti-vaxxer runs American medical policy. I guess they need to keep the narrative of widespread leftist censorship alive.
Comments
I assume this is an attempt to set a precedent for the repeal of Section 230 and the rolling nationalization of all large US social media platforms and regulation through a body like the FCC, something the right and many people on HN have been clamoring for.
Any platform with more than some arbitrary number of users which accepts and displays user submitted content will be required to post all legal content and will be prevented from moderating legal content without a court order.
I don't know why they bother, they won after all. Despite all of the "COVID oppression" they complain about, their views are now mainstream and an anti-vaxxer runs American medical policy. I guess they need to keep the narrative of widespread leftist censorship alive.
They're trying to get that through Moody v Netchoice.