What part of being banned from Twitter prevents someone from being heard?

Also, who is getting banned for talking about the politicians? #2, #7, and #8 (obliquely) on trending right now are about the main politician who was banned...

Section 230 is not supposed to promote free speech. It is supposed to promote a sustainable market for Internet services at various levels. An unmoderated Internet is not sustainable because it is overrun by trolls and nazis, and various kinds of unlawful activities; some degree of moderation is needed, but without liability protection nobody would take on that risk.

Parler has not been kicked off the Internet, it has only been removed from app stores. It can be hosted as a website if meeting the demands of those tech companies -- which amount to doing a better job of preventing terrorists from using the app to organize a violent overthrow of the US government -- and users can just visit that website.

>But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the point?

... and yet somehow user-generated pornographic content (c.f. OnlyFans), which is never ever going to be in anyone's app store, somehow exists and by all accounts is exceedingly popular.

Something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, with this Section 230 topic, is at what point do we actually hit the limit for, “go start your own”?

Do racists have to build their own Internet in order to ensure they can spread a racist message digitally?

That said, Twitter isn’t that line, and neither are app stores. I’m typing this in a Safari browser on my iPhone; HN doesn’t have or need an app.

The demand from Apple was that Parler start moderation of the content which was trying to plan an armed version of what hand in Capitol on Jan 19th. Which, after seeing what happened recently, seems like a fair demand. I continue to see plenty of right and left leaning views in YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

Web apps work still.

Why should these companies be forced to provide access to a platform that’s largely used for coordinating insurrection and fomenting hate?

Every source I’ve seen disagrees with you.

Got it - I thought that was yesterday and was confused but it’s probably a time zone thing (am in Europe).

Still isn’t that separate from 230? Going by the article this law does not seem to be as much about moderation as it is about accountability.

I do share your sentiment that there is too much control by a few powerful players over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse.

> Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about.

Nope, they are telling you who is allowed on their platform.

You can hear from or talk about whoever you want.

> Let me guess, you’re the type of person who will complain incessantly about the Koch brothers and money in politics and super PACs...

Well, no, not the way you mean.

That is, I think all those things are corrosive within the structure of the present US political system; OTOH, I also think that the ways people propose to constrain them tend to both have side effects as bad or worse than the problems they solve, and violate the First Amendment.

> and yet here you are gleeful about giving tech oligarchs the effective power to choose the next President.

I disagree that that is the result, and I'm not at all gleeful.