How would repealing 230 address your perceived double standard? Platforms have the right to make editorial decisions about what appears on their platform. Without 230, they’d probably double down on it. Repealing 230 would not somehow provide an Avenue to force them to provide “fair and balanced” coverage.

Maybe you just want 230 repealed so the networks can be burned to the ground through a mass of frivolous lawsuits. If so ... no?

I don’t mind bias or stricter rules. Left or right, progressive or conservative, all fair games. I do mind hypocrisy, as hypocrisy is the result of setting narratives regardless of facts or principles. And yes, I don’t mind if twitter goes down.

How does 230 address hypocrisy? Or are you just airing a personal grudge?

I think the point of the post is that repealing section 230 would not help with “fairness” on the platforms. The arguments in the post are pretty strong imho.

I think you're seeing this case from the article:

> So when you see Trump or other conservatives calling for a Section 230 repeal, sometimes it is just an effort to inflict pain to try and get the platforms to do what they want.

And what do they want? Fairness...

IE: Violent posts from SJWs attacking white people and supporting violence in BLM/AntiFA "protests"? Many MANY still standing and complete silence from the platforms during YEARS of violence, hate and instigation...

"violent posts" from conservatives supporting thousands of examples of voter fraud and calling for peaceful marches - just like Trump called for - while questioning the "truth" about mask mandates that have changed on political whims (Fauci: for masks, against masks, for masks, against masks, etc)? THOSE have to be taken down with extreme prejudice...

The double standards the platforms are pushing is so extreme that "peaceful scholars" are honored... while American Presidents are banned...

You can, for four years, say "russia hacked our elections" with the evidence being a single foreigner paid by the DNC for spy information. But you can't say "democrats hacked our elections" with thousands of Americans presenting evidence.

The article is true that no one is going to be happy... but that won't change while the platforms are the massive hypocrites that everyone in the world can see on full display as they push 1984's "Truth".

If you're going to make a point about the hypocrisy of demanding evidence, your example probably shouldn't include such an obviously incorrect statement as the belief that the Steele Dossier was the only evidence produced regarding Russian's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The fact that most of society thinks it's much worse to say mean things about black people than to say mean things about white people is not Twitter's fault.

Does Twitter allow it because "most" of society believes it to be true... or does "most" of our perception of society believe it because Twitter allows it?

True or not, we mustn't let a potentially minority-held opinion overtake the public sphere because the next generation will most certainly believe it because that's all they'll know. That is why absolute free debate is crucial and feelings should have no part in it.

The world doesn't think it's worse... the world thinks its hypocrisy to ban for one and not the other.

I'm against both... you defend one.

> thousands of examples of voter fraud

This is not true.

> with the evidence being a single foreigner paid by the DNC for spy information.

This is not true

> this is not true

https://www.newsweek.com/rnc-chair-says-11000-people-have-co...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8936201/Kayleigh-Mc...

> this is not true

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clint...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-c...

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bo...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-campaign-dnc-helped-fun...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-for-r...

Honestly, how can you believe trump's pr person waving a stack of paper on hannity but no other reporters got to see the supposed evidence. It's just laughable. Especially since they had nothing when it came time to show it to the courts .

Because Trumps been shown true in his "lies" more often than people on the left want to admit? It's laughable how often his "lies" are simply opinions others disagree with... or are actually true - even if it takes months or years for the truth to come out.

Example: My campaign was spied upon.

Even to this day, the left is caught up in lies... "find the fraud" for example was just proven an out right lie.

Honestly, how can you believe the left as they scream LIAR! when they support Biden/Harris? Biden can't speak without lying and Harris couldn't even win her own state because she's laughable?

Trumps got problems galore... but he's still 100x better than anything on the left - which is why he won in 2016... and why they had to cheat in 2020.