I'm unclear on a point - did they demonetize the accounts or did the advertisers pull their support of the accounts? If the advertisers no longer wish to support the account, then it is absolutely their right to not do so....I don't consider that demonetization. If the platform decided to no longer pay the account or allow anyone to advertise on it, then that would be demonetization. The article doesn't make it clear if the platform sees a difference or which of those two things happened.
They may not be required to police themselves NOW....but if those that want to kill Section 230 would make it so they absolutely MUST do so....they are just getting into practice before it becomes a requirement.
Which is part of the whole mess that drives me the most mad.....not the same competitive market. Cricket sells phones and access while Cricut sells cutting machines and supplies.....should NEVER be a chance of a lawsuit over that, but somebody probably will at some point.
At least the Cricut name isn't close to anything related to the Micro-Brew industry or they'd have been hauled into court repeatedly by now I'm sure!
Well, since he knew enough to know what her working space was, it would also seem to me that he would know she'd requested remote teaching and been denied.....thus he knew her circumstances. Maybe I'm wrong but he sounds to me like he suffers from rectal-cranial inversion so I'm going to continue thinking he knew and didn't care.