Can Republicans show me the part of the Constitution that requires publishing?

[Walt]

I knew this was going to be a problem when Google and Amazon were buying up servers that all the internet traffics through back in 2009.

All the traffic of the internet does not go through a few servers. Could you mean switches, and routers? But even there, Google and Amazon does not control many of those. More importantly there is very little that you can do with control of switches and routers.

Servers cost $250 or so(in bulk, and used servers are basically worthless. I very much doubt Google and Amazon would waste money buying used servers. They are working hard to buy new servers to provide services from, but your post has no meaning.

What Google and Amazon do is offer cheap, effective service to provide servers. If you want to host a website on a server, they do a great job. But if they don't want to do it, there are plenty of other server providers willing to host your website... OR, you can host it yourself. There are more addresses on the internet than there are atoms in the universe, so it is a resource that

It was folly to give 1 or 2 entities that much control of the internet.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. do not have control over the internet. They have control over the social networks. You are free to Twitter twitter whenever you want, but you lose connection to all the people who use Twitter. If they all leave at once, then the social network company loses everything. Just ask Yahoo, MySpace, ICQ, etc.

The point here is the users are in control.

Now I am a big fan of interoperability, which would allow you to leave Twitter, but keep your Twitter followers. That would increase the competitiveness.

But, Republican demands that government be allowed to control all social networks does nothing to increase competitiveness, and is very anti-free expression.

[martin]

this case is more nuanced.

if you sell yourself as a platform, and seek 230 immunity from prosecution ever, you are now a platform.

rebekah jones is not in this category. and she should not have beeen harrased, however, you cannot use this case to justify Twitter and facebook censorship.

Agreed, that censorship is justified on its own terms.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Agreed, that censorship is justified on its own terms.

you're also wrong. she should not have been harrassed.