undefined | Better HN

0 pointsClubber2y ago0 comments

Let me restate your position to make sure I have it:

1. Because Facebook didn't comply with every request, they never felt coerced and neither did any other social media company, therefore no social media company was coerced.

2. The Democrats who threatened to repeal or modify 230 and the Republicans who threatened to repeal or modify 230 would never repeal or modify 230 because of party politics, therefore this wasn't a realistic threat and therefore not form of coercion.

Does that sum up your argument?

0 comments

ImPostingOnHN2y ago

your argument was summarized above, and it simply doesn't present a plausible scenario:

the dude swearing at Facebook had no power to repeal section 230, no power to control the GOP Senate into doing so, and no plausible path to convincing the GOP to censor the sort of content in question (content the GOP itself supports, content they oppose censoring)

in short: the "threat" you described isn't realistic or plausible, least of all by Facebook, and a claim of coercion requires that the threat be plausible, not imaginary and contrived

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse