"Broadcasters" of information are supposed to exist "for the public good" and are governed by the FCC's Communications Decency Act -- which includes Section 230: companies that do not edit / curate / censor content are considered agnostic "platforms" and are not liable for content; whereas companies that do edit / curate / censor are considered "publishers" and thus liable for all content. So surely all of the social media providers are publishers, and therefore sue-able. imho
It would be great to see collusion tied directly back to Biden, however, his typical excuse of "plausible deniability" is the most likely result - he didn't know what his campaign staff was doing.
I would also like to see clear direction from US government officials, demonstrating a clear violation of Amendment 1.
Clarity and irrefutable documentation is essential if we're going to get the attention of others and resolve the dirty tricks.
It's about anticipating what is coming. Why is Musk 3 steps behind? Billions received this medical experimentation. What is the intent of this?
"Broadcasters" of information are supposed to exist "for the public good" and are governed by the FCC's Communications Decency Act -- which includes Section 230: companies that do not edit / curate / censor content are considered agnostic "platforms" and are not liable for content; whereas companies that do edit / curate / censor are considered "publishers" and thus liable for all content. So surely all of the social media providers are publishers, and therefore sue-able. imho
It would be great to see collusion tied directly back to Biden, however, his typical excuse of "plausible deniability" is the most likely result - he didn't know what his campaign staff was doing.
I would also like to see clear direction from US government officials, demonstrating a clear violation of Amendment 1.
Clarity and irrefutable documentation is essential if we're going to get the attention of others and resolve the dirty tricks.