re: law suit against the cake baker filed. "Won't bake a cake for Satan's birthday"

quote:

---

Congress assumed they wouldn't moderate their products?

---

Well, the argument goes that these sites needed immunity from being sued because of shite posted on their platforms. IE, they basically took the position of, "hey man, that's just people posting.......WE aren't associated with their shite".

quote:

---

So after answering all of those questions, you basically agree with my message.

---

No.

You see, the baker, or anyone really saying, "hey, I don't want to CREATE something on your behalf" is quite obviously different than simply being an online platform. It's absurd to even pretend to not see that.

However, even with that obvious difference, I'm very fundamentally against govt agencies "moderating" because those agencies, over time, almost certainly would make YouTube, Facebook and all the others look like overt freedom lovers.

My simple caveat on these platform is that RIGHT NOW, they have it both ways. They are saying, "hey, we are moderating this shite because we don't want to be a part of its propagation"............."but we shouldn't be able get sued over shite that IS propagated on our sites because we can't help it".

Nope. They can't have both. They need to pick one. Either they can't help it, so stop fricking moderating.......or you can........so the govt needs to eliminate their protection.