Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by zelon88 on Monday November 11, 2019 @08:10PM
(#21510593)
How do you figure?
You agreed that your posts would be moderated when you signed up. Should Facebook be eternally available to host people's timeline? Who pays for that? Why should I innovate the next big thing if someone in a different country is going to hold me legally responsible to support it forever?
And the ruling doesn't mean Twitter has to host Trump's Tweets forever or guarantee service. If he breaks their TOS they will ban him. They have a right too.
What the ruling means is that the government has a responsibility to archive his Twitter posts and that he himself cannot restrict access to it, as president.
Beside that, a lot of people talk to media about first amendment they often then go to court raising anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are much more broader and can be applied to private funded companies. When it comes to international companies there is also free speech as defined by the EU and that one do not make a distinction between company and state in the same way as the first amendment. The distinction between free speech (US first amendment), free speech (EU human rights) and free speech (US anti-discrimination) are all fine legal technicallities, but limitation in one does not give private funded social networks free range to do whatever they want.