Twitter and facebook are not required to allow any speech on their platforms, even political speech. You can argue I suppose that refusing to platform this newest story is of value to Biden, but if they can feasibly point to how it violates it's ToS, then there is no issue.Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
As private companies they can determine how their services are used.
What double standard did they apply? How do you know they didn't do a fact check?The social media companies restricted conservative speech without rationale, without a fact check, in a purely partisan way, by applying a double standard. There's just nothing hard about this.
This is not true. The publisher/platform distinction doesn't apply to the internet because of section 230 of the CDA. That's a common law distinction that was specifically overwritten by the act.Sure they can, but when they edit the speech of others they become publishers and as such no longer subject to the legal protections from liability suits that are given under the law to open platforms that allow free speech.
So there is that...
I wasn't following too closely, but now i am and I see why Twitter censored the content. They had a policy of not publishing hacked content. AKA there was something against their ToS that they could point too.It's common knowledge. Have you followed this story at all? No fact check was presented before the censorship. Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the content before even giving an explanation why, much less a fact check.
Election interference.
Discuss....
I wasn't following too closely, but now i am and I see why Twitter censored the content. They had a policy of not publishing hacked content. AKA there was something against their ToS that they could point too.
Sure they can, but when they edit the speech of others they become publishers
This is not true. The publisher/platform distinction doesn't apply to the internet because of section 230 of the CDA. That's a common law distinction that was specifically overwritten by the act.
Even if that were true, Simon and Schuster does not have to publish your novel. They can tell you it stinks and to go pound sand. Publishers can select and edit; that's why they have editors.
Even if that were true, Simon and Schuster does not have to publish your novel. They can tell you it stinks and to go pound sand. Publishers can select and edit; that's why they have editors.
If they are restricting information of one candidate could be an in-kind contribution. Providing a service to a candidate may be illegal if the value is determined to break campaign laws on contributions.As private companies they can determine how their services are used.
Go ahead and read the rest of the post you cherry-picked. So far you've committed a blatant fallacy and a blatant misrepresentation based on the fact that you just cut out 26 inconvenient words from a sentence.