Tesla has received billions of dollars in subsidies from city, state and federal treasuries. Is Tesla a utility or private company?
tesla isn't a social media platform and i assume it has followed all legal requirements relating to its subsidies. twitter hasn't, so i'm missing your point.
Twitter and social media in general aren’t public utilities. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether they should be, but legally, they aren’t. Your original post was incorrect in that regard. Receiving subsidies doesn’t make Twitter a utility in the same way it doesn’t make Tesla one.
i didn't actually mention susbsidies. i didn't say that subsidies were what the social media companies were receiving. there is a u.s. law - i forget its name and details - which prevents the social media companies from doing some of the things they do. i didn't say the social media companies actuallt are utilities, but the particular law requires them to behave more like utilities than they do. if i find the details of the particular law, i'll add a link here. my post wasn't incorrect; it just appears that you, like most, are unaware of the law.
You mean like Zuckerburg at FB/Meta? Now there's a dodgy billionnaire, right up there with Bill Gates.
i've found the details of the particular law. it is section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996, created in part to facilitate the growth of the internet without holding isps and websites responsible for what might be posted by individuals. as you say, there is ongoing debate. this is a link to the law, i haven't looked for its wording anywhere more official and assume it is accurately worded on the website of a prestigious law school. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Okay, but it doesn’t say what you’re arguing. “(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or” It explicitly says that ‘providers’ (in this case, social media platforms) reserve the right to restrict content on their platforms, even if the content is constitutionally protected speech.
that's true and i did read through it. however, it also says "in good faith" and double standards abound in social media sites and i don't believe that for a second. most of them have a very left-centric bias, although those on the left claim this isn't so, but the rats deserting twitter show it is.
Yes Bill Gates. Check into his background, general behaviour over the years and the views he espouses, not my cup of tea for sure.
Absolutely. I don't think any one person should have 100% control over a media organisation that size.
