"Section 230 is a unconstitutional, a travesty and a threat to our country. But I'm going to use the hell out of it now that I can!"
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!
Should be suing the twitter user for Forging & Distributing fake document - there is no valid 1st Amendment argument supporting a criminal act like that
Not saying the court would agree with both arguments but at least that would be the correct way to approach the suit - IMO
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.
and still expect it to put money in your Banksy
that "In Deep Shit" could be a lawyers default mode.
Am I the only one hoping to god that this joker pulls a Mission Impossible mask off and turns out to be Charles "Digger" Carreon?
That pretty much guarantees it's a winner.
BUY STOCK!
No, he's building a wall to keep Rico out of the country.
well duh! Money is the root of all evil, therefore all money is evil, therefore seize all money!
I mean, if Ex-President Abraham Lincoln can take the time to log onto the internet and comment on how important the FCC actions and policies are....why can't you just admit you're wrong about them?
I think you misspelled hypocritic ?!?
what could go wrong?
the Soveriegn Citizen movement will rejoice that the court has confirmed their rights to "travel".
but ordering employees to change passwords to prevent users from getting their paid for service sounds suspiciously like conspiracy to defraud!
Doe - pounding on door and yelling "Your apartment is on fire!"
1to1 - "Thanks but please don't tell the neighbors"
Doe - "No, that would be reckless and stupid"
1to1- "We're calling the police to have you arrested for disturbing the peace and attempting to blackmail us by telling our neighbors that our apartment is on fire!"
Indian Court - "Not only shouldn't you have told the neighbors about the fire, but you aren't allowed to tell anyone else about it going forward!"
Instead of claiming that it is wrong 96% of the time, why not be positive and say that it has a 96% success rate at identifying the wrong person?
SEE? that sounds so much better!
and you have the "asset forfeiture" program on an even more epic scale!
You kids and your new-fangled interwebs!
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.