Dorsey Admits to Mob Driven Censorship, Cruz Points out their ability to steer elections, Trump tweets Media and Big Tech are not covering Biden Corruption! Repeal Sec 230!" Creepy and Erie? Decide! Links, Verification and connectors inside showing the Trail of Corruption along with footage. #SentateHearingsTechGiants, #Section230Hearing, #FacebookHearing, #TwitterHearing, #GoogleHearing, #WeThePeopleStandWithOurPresident, #maga, #KAG2020, #kag, #Trump2020 https://voat.co/v/theawakening/4091265

Social Media Platforms: The Rage and The Outrage The "only" Constitutional way to address all the issues around social media platforms is to amend Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. First, more clearly define what it is to be a platform (the Do's and Don't Do's). Second, define and limit the activities of the platform providers identifying what constitutes editorial activities thus removing liability protections and proscribing discriminatory activities by the platform. The users should be free to block or subscribe to any opinions and information they wish without liability. It is correct and proper that liability protection exists for platforms. They should not be liable for the opinions of others. The issues not addressed in the public dialog on Social Media is one of "Property Rights" and "Commerce". The provider of the platform has invested time and resources to develop and manage that property. They are offering to the public a service gratis of any exchange of tangible assets (Free). The users of these platforms gain no rights to the platform through its use since again they are NOT "Buying" rights to access the service. Thus everyone is in a quandary when they "Feel" "Entitled" to the service. Recognizing this does not alter the impact this technology has on society. It is something that needs to be addressed. #Section230, #Publishing, #Editorializing, #SocialMedia, #BigTech, #InformationDescrimination, #SocialMediaEntitlement https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/gop-senators-order-twitter-and-facebook-ceos-testify-after-censorship-new-york

I intend to move forward with an @FCC rule making to clarify the meaning of #Section230. Read my full statement below...

Big Tech, Social Media, and Your Rights: Lets be clear. A #DOJ proposal does not make law or grant the authority to enforce. This must all go through the #LegislativeProcess. The idea of removing #LiabilityProtection under #Section230 for #Platforms that do not evenly apply their platform standards is fair approach. This may have the effect of making #SocialMedia a subscribed to service. What is constantly ignored in this dialog is that social media platforms are #FreeServices or in other words, the "free" use of someone else's property. None of us as users are "Entitled" to use that property. Everyone needs to be very careful here the implications of this are very dangerous. Do not like the "Free" service? Then find another or build your own. The Customer is Always Right. The question here is who is the customer? #EntitledUse, #BigTech https://www.infowars.com/doj-announces-proposals-to-strip-section-230-immunity-from-big-tech/

The interview does a good job at touching on #Section230. However, the basic issue is not addressed. Someone (anyone) develops a technical capability. Does having that capability grant the "Right of Use" to anyone who wants to use the capability? Is the "Owner" of that capability "Obligated" to use that capability themselves or to grant access to it to anyone who wants to use it? Social Media Platforms are the "Private Property" of the organization that created it. They "Grant" access to that "Property" free of charge (They demand "NO" exchange of value for value from the user). Since it is about providing a platform for "Opinion Speech" everyone thinks it is about their 1st Amendment Rights. Does ones right to express oneself include the right to a microphone they did not purchase? Government involvement in both private property rights and opinion speech is laced with all kinds of problems. Do we really want to institutionalize this? #FCC, #1A, #TrumpExecutiveOrder, #Twitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzokmbSXhhg&feature=youtu.be

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (c)(1, 2) grants "platforms" broad discretion. What is the real question here? Are users of a platform "entitled" to the use of that platform? Are they paying for that use (buying, exchanging value for value) or is it offered gratis to any who wishes to use it? Is the platform provider "obligated" to offer the service? Under the 1st Amendment, citizens "Are Entitled" to express (say/have) any opinion they wish (generally). Does the 1st Amendment guarantee the right to be heard, not be offended, or disagreed with? Each "Platform" is like private property where they are offering free use of a whistle. The private property owner gets to decide who comes in to use that whistle. Do we want government to regulate that private property and how the whistle will be used? How is government doing now with all the authorities it does have? "Who is John Galt?" #Section230, #1A, #1stAmendment, #Regulation #WhoIsJohnGalt https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230