Also, who is getting banned for talking about the politicians? #2, #7, and #8 (obliquely) on trending right now are about the main politician who was banned...
Parler has not been kicked off the Internet, it has only been removed from app stores. It can be hosted as a website if meeting the demands of those tech companies -- which amount to doing a better job of preventing terrorists from using the app to organize a violent overthrow of the US government -- and users can just visit that website.
... and yet somehow user-generated pornographic content (c.f. OnlyFans), which is never ever going to be in anyone's app store, somehow exists and by all accounts is exceedingly popular.
Do racists have to build their own Internet in order to ensure they can spread a racist message digitally?
That said, Twitter isn’t that line, and neither are app stores. I’m typing this in a Safari browser on my iPhone; HN doesn’t have or need an app.
Still isn’t that separate from 230? Going by the article this law does not seem to be as much about moderation as it is about accountability.
I do share your sentiment that there is too much control by a few powerful players over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse.
Nope, they are telling you who is allowed on their platform.
You can hear from or talk about whoever you want.
Well, no, not the way you mean.
That is, I think all those things are corrosive within the structure of the present US political system; OTOH, I also think that the ways people propose to constrain them tend to both have side effects as bad or worse than the problems they solve, and violate the First Amendment.
> and yet here you are gleeful about giving tech oligarchs the effective power to choose the next President.
I disagree that that is the result, and I'm not at all gleeful.