Timeline for What laws allow social media companies to "choose" who to serve, but not brick-and-mortar business?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2021 at 21:46 | comment | added | user36183 | @Hikonyan Which verified twitter user posted a threat of violence on twitter and didn't get their account banned or suspended? | |
| Mar 17, 2021 at 18:33 | comment | added | Hikonyan | @Colin Losey If these companies are using decorum as a basis, then they are certainly not applying it equally. (For example, "verified" blue checkmark users on Twitter are able to post threats of violence, racism, etc on the platform, while many other users would be banned for it. A former president of the United States for example, was suspended on that supposed basis, if I'm not mistaken.) But as other answers have explained, it seems they have a legal right to enforce it unequally since "decorum" is not a legal protected class. | |
| Mar 17, 2021 at 2:44 | comment | added | user36183 | @GeorgeWhite so ultimately we reach the same result | |
| Mar 17, 2021 at 2:07 | comment | added | George White | These laws have lists of protected classed - like the federal one I quoted. I may be wrong but I would be very surprised if you find one that says "political party" or equivalent. | |
| Mar 16, 2021 at 23:55 | history | answered | user36183 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |