Maggie's Farm

The social media companies (and internet in general), get a legal exemption since they are supposed to be impartial conveyers of information - like your phone company. The phone company cannot be criminally charged for carrying illegal conversations for example, and people cannot be cut off from their phone because of their political views.

Now that social media companies are obviously not impartial - they are instead publishers deciding what gets distributed - then they have to:

- Be held to the same standards as newspapers, meaning they can be sued for libel, plagerism, etc. They can also be sued for breaking contracts with users, such as deleting posts or blocking stories that capricious or have no written policy that was agreed to before hand by people signing up for the service.

- Be held to the same monopolistic practices as publishers. There are all sorts of laws on the books that prohibit concentraiton of media into too few hands. There are also prohibitions that limit foreign ownership. Courts have held all these laws are legal and not against the first amendment.

So if you support the social media companies you can't have it both ways. They are either publishers held to the same standards of newspapers, or they are like the telephone company just conveying information.

Since they are obviosly banning then they need to be held to the same standards as newspapers, and private people can sue and do sue papers all the time. In this case a national class action lawsuit should be pursued.

I would add that publishers pay for their own printing press, ink and paper, but the social media companies, like ultitlies, are often using infrastructure that is paid for by others, often taxpapers. Perhaps these companies should start paying for publically paid for infrastructure that they use things paid by taxpayers, but then deny those taxpayers service?

For evolution to be "science" it has to be predictive. Yet every few years a new fossil is found and evolutionists are "stunned", "amazed", "rules have to be rewritten" and so on. So the theory (note the term) is modified, changed, etc., but yet another new fossil is found and it is rince and repeat.

That being said, I am always amazed at the contempt evolutionists have for anyone who is not signed onto their theory like this comment here, and I never understood how believing in evolution or not makes someone a good citizen or not, be able to raise a family, or hold job. I've worked for years in high-tech and my belief on how species came into being doesn't affect how I make the big bucks.