Welcome to Dissenter

The Comment Section of the Internet

Changing Section 230 won't do anything except guarantee more censorship, and its an extremely stupid argument to pretend otherwise. Removing Section 230 wouldn't inherently compel social media companies to host any kind of material, the whole point of Section 230 is that if an individual user did something to break the law the company where the material was posted wouldn't be liable for the crime. It does not obligate them to host any kind of material as is, and it removing the immunity would not change that.

This is NOT a matter that can be solved legislatively. The principles of liberty include freedom of association, or the right to discriminate. Are they being hypocrites? Yes, absolutely, and they are allowed to be. The solution is not to degrade liberty by creating yet another layer of mandatory association. The solution is for consumers to WALK AWAY from companies that will not support American ideals. None of these services are necessary for life, and they are often arguably detrimental to maintaining sanity.

loading...

Keep that shit up. let those platforms kill themselves.

loading...

Yes. This is very important.

loading...

We don't need Bar. The president can deal with this with two simple EOs:

  1. Revoke the CDA protections of specific companies violating their agreements
  2. Bar federal agencies from maintaining an official presence on sites that engage in political discrimination and violate CDA. This will do sufficient economic damage to these companies that it will either get their attention and force compliance or will destroy them - we win either way.
loading...

Title Fix: Conservative leaders urge AG Barr to stomp on Big Tech Private Property Rights and their right to self determination as guaranteed per the US Constitution.

loading...
Dissenter Logo
13 comments