Comment by like_any_other
5 hours ago
> Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave
Is this referring to platforms allegedly [1] being more prone to ban conservatives? If so, undoing that (for the sake of argument - I don't see how repealing Section 230 actually accomplishes that) can't fairly be called "forced readership" any more than forcing a library to carry a book is forcing you to read it. Forced intermediarship would be the honest term.
You're not accusing content that platforms "force you to read" what they currently don't ban, are you?
[1] I say "allegedly", but for some types of right-wing content, this is not alleged at all, as the platforms themselves admit it: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707258353/facebook-bans-white...
Yes, I'm referring to platforms allegedly being more prone to ban/suppress/whatever conservatives.
I'm with you, I do not think repealing or striking down Section 230 would accomplish anything towards making conservatives feel less censored, or whatever it is that things like Moody vs Netchoice, Texas' HB 20, and others are supposed to accomplish.
No, I do not think platforms force me to read anything of what they carry. Right now. I deleted my Twitter account, and I don't click on any NYT or WaPo links.
I merely observe that conservatives do have some kind of victimhood thing about mass media, and that by and large, they believe Section 230 has something to do with whatever it is they think mass media inflicts on them.