So if your next-door neighbour who has a grudge against you reports to the police that you are running a pedophile ring in your basement and he saw you drinking the blood of babies, you would be ok with Twitter letting him broadcast that you are being investigated by police for that?
First of all, they just expressed concern that SCOTUS would overturn the ACA based on their past record and the replacement of Justice Ginsberg with Justice Coney-Barrett. Second, it is not yet decided so we don't know the result.Again, concerns were expressed. Nothing wrong with that.So you know as a fact that all mail-in ballots were delivered on time? They were not. And in Georgia and Arizona late ballots are not counted.Trump won the election in a landslide, according to Trump. So the violence that may occur will be after the inauguration of Biden.So Trump predicting the release of information from the Russian hacked DNC server was blind luck? The only reason we do not know more about Trump's connections to the Russians is because Trump and his cronies, such as Paul Manafort, obstructed Mueller's investigation. Oh, they let you analyse the laptop that Rudy Giuliani got from the Russians that supposedly contain the smoking gun emails?
Again, no one wants anything negative reported about them on social media or any other source. Particularly if it is false.
That is not the issue. Here is the actual point. If a newspaper, TV station, or book publisher makes a false report about someone, that person has recourse to a lawsuit against them for libel or defamation. But social media platforms are protected under federal law from such suits because they are not supposed to operate as publishers but as platform providers for others to provide content. Like your telephone company. Can you understand the difference? A newspaper or TV station decides what story they wish to run. As a result, they are responsible for the content. A social media platform or telephone service does not supply the content. Customers or users do so.
A social media platform is protected
because they are not supposed to be involved in content. And to facilitate the use of these platforms, they are not held legally responsible for what others say on those platforms. The user can be sued because they are the "publisher" or content provider of the story - not the social media provider. So here is the point. If social media providers decide not to act just as platform providers but as arbiters of content, then they become more like content providers. In which case, they should become subject to liability for defamatory conduct. They want to have it both ways, however. They want to be free from liability but also to decide what content is worthy for inclusion and what is not. They have every right to make those rules for their users. But if they decide to become involved in content (e.g. deciding which stories are permissible and which are not to be discussed), they should forfeit the protections of federal law from lawsuits.
