and Spread Lies? Well Parler is learning that even if they are happy making money by hosting liars, white supremacists, conspiracy mongers, domestic terrorists, etc... Their business partners have no obligation to be part of their activities.
And now they are working to sue Amazon, even though they blatantly violated the terms of their agreement... Good Luck with that. :-)
Now I understand that I have free speech, however that does not mean that anyone else has to listen to me or publish my words. That seems like a pretty GOP belief, and yet these folks businesses should be forced to violate their companies own rules regarding content and allow people to lie on their platforms.
Now I am happy to post almost any guest comment on G2A, but if you want to lie, incite violence, propagate blatantly wrong conspiracy theories, etc. It is not happening here.
9 comments:
as I recall Jerry has posted a bunch of misinformation here but as he believed it was true I guess that it is technically not a lie.
Merkel among EU leaders questioning Twitter’s Trump ban
I think buisnesses withholding donations from GOP politicians that want to support lies and insurrection will have an impact.
The campaign finance system has been rocked, with American Express, FedEx, Dow, Facebook and other major companies pausing or halting political donations in the wake of the violent assault on the Capitol.
Laurie,
The good news about G2A is there are dedicated fact checkers available to call BS when necessary. :-)
Agreed money talks, BS walks...
The EU Leaders want to over regulate as usual. :-(
Maybe they should create their own "Twitter", "Facebook"....
I am baffled by Trump's view on this. He wants to eliminate the statutory protection the media companies have from defamation lawsuits. The way I look at it is that a newspaper is responsible for information it transmit in the way the phone companies are not. The policy issues surrounding this are debatable and there are good arguments on both sides. But what I don't understand about Trump's position is that he wants to be able to hold the media companies responsible for what they transmit, but he also wants to require them to transmit anything he says. It's hard to imagine a clearer case of wanting it both ways.
Agreed...
I assume if makes them liable, they will clamp down on anything that is near questionable...
I am sure the social media companies enjoy their statutory execmption, but even so, they don't want to be in business with terrorists or to facilitate terrorism. That's neither right nor good for business. Right now, the social media companies are under attack from all sides. They are criticized for publishing objectionable material, and they are criticized for not censoring that very same material. Critics on each side seem oblivious to even the existence of the other side. I am sure they are wonder what the heck we want them to do.
--Hiram
Agreed.
On the other hand, we apparently pay them really well to be confused. :-)
Post a Comment