Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror | Category: General Source
Well technically it’s not the “same” as aiding and abetting, it is aiding and abetting.
Imagine a business where you sell advertising next to an ISIS post.
“But if we don’t let one extremist ideology be allowed on here, we can’t allow any!”
Meanwhile, people are still banned for criticizing Elon.
Except that it is the same.
Looks like Musk has got things all buttoned up on free speech boys.
Their logic is like saying you wouldn’t prosecute the phone company for the crimes discussed over the telephone but their algorithm was actively pushes content which promotes terrorism
This is honestly ridiculous, have they even considered all the lonely, isolated men that could use some purpose in their lives? Or the poor FBI agents that have been reduced to radicalizing basement dwellers.
That’s not even mentioning how hard it is to transfer money to people who bank through their mom’s credit union
Which is inadvertently correct. The law states that you conspire when you knowingly aid and abet criminality. if someone online tells you to spend all your money on the lottery and you actually do it, that’s your fault? Keep in mind that there are ways to help the enemy purposely fail in their fruitless endeavor.
*“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em.”*
Will argue to the Supreme Court that being the internet supplier to ISIS is ok; tries monthly to stop supplying internet to Ukrainian people trying not to be killed in their homes by a madman.