Section 230 was never meant to deprive individuals of their 1st Amendment Rights. It was meant to protect a nascent 1st Amendment industry. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube, have gone way beyond being nascent services. These companies with multi-billion dollar valuations don't need protection. These companies are also taking direction from members of the Democrat Party.
Section 230 does not prevent operators of social media services from taking away 1st Amendment rights. These companies have used their section 230 protection to prevent from being sued for their actions. We all should know that section 230 was put into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to protect a nascent internet service from being held liable for the actions of the service users.
Just because these companies are private businesses, doesn't give them the right to abridge our rights granted by our Constitution. Only the US Congress and the state legislatures can change our Constitution.
Vehicle manufacturers claim that they operate on razor thin profit margins. Each button, or meter added is costed estimated using several factors: cost of the device; cost of adding to the system; cost of maintenance manuals; cost of warranty; etc.
The 10 cent meter may add 5 dollars to the cost of the vehicle which may translate into 25 dollars added to the sale price of the vehicle.
Looking at this from the consumer point of view. Would you spend the extra 25 dollars not to lose power at 10 PM in a rural area with no cell service?
Let's not forget that DOJ under Obama did the same thing, and especially targeted journalists. Plus he started and investigation on Trump as soon as he announced. Also, there's the Russia collusion investigation which started in 2016.
Then there's the matter of all of the leaking of classified information by democrat operatives, and members of the House and Senate. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell probably leaked most of the stuff.
If Journalists are publishing confidential information then they shouldn't be protected. The person leaking the information is committing a crime and the Journalist is helping in the commission of a crime. Nothing in our laws or the constitution provides protection from prosecution.
While Biden was VP, the DOJ sent journalists to jail for not revealing sources.
Isn't it possible that Democrat operatives messed with the machines so that they couldn't be audited? Keep in mind that the Maricopa elections officials were doing some very suspicious things with the vote count.
No evidence of fraud was heard by any court. All court rulings were based on pleadings from Democrat attorneys concerning process and time.
You wrote the following in the 3rd paragraph - "Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users". If Section 230 does protect both providers and users from law suits because of statements made, how is it that the providers can label user statements as false or misleading???
Senator Warren claims that she didn't write the loopholes which companies like Amazon "exploit". And yet, the loopholes were in the bills passed by Congress. Therefore, we must assume that Senator Warren either does not read the bills before voting, or she is paid lots of money to not read the bills before voting.
Hopefully, the basket of wonderful Democrats in her home state will not vote for her continued incompetence in the next election.
This goes back to 1996 Telecommunication Act. At the time, it was created to protect companies which were just getting started. It these companies were simply allowing and open dialogue without filtering content, it was assumed that they might be open to law suits because of disagreements with readers of content.
Some readers might not like or agree with the published comments. They might want to sue the authors for libel, but would also want to hold the media accountable as well. 25 years latter, section 230 is being used to allow multi-billion dollar companies the ability to censor speech, and publish libelous statements without fear of being sued. These are no longer "startups". The founders of these "startups" are now on the verge of being the wealthiest individuals in the world.
Section 230 needs to be modified to prevent blocking of protected speech, and the rights of Americans to hear (or read) that speech. How can we justify allowing these companies to publish child pornography while blocking protected speech???
Comcast offers Peacock for free, but then charges extra to view many of the available content. Don't they realize that when customers are paying $200/month for services and content that paying to watch old TV shows is not good.
Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu make money by charging a flat monthly fee.