Thread by @AriCohn

1/ "I haven't educated myself at all on the details of this, but allow me to stake my point on it anyway" is not exactly the sign of a thoughtful person.

But it *is* a good sign you're about to get a bad #Section230 take.

pvtimes.com/opinion/tim-bu…

2/ "Dictatorships, socialism, and communism rely on control of the media, and therefore it is bad that this multitude of private, non-governmental companies have control over their own platforms" is certainly one possible stupid thing you could say.

3/ And then there's this dumb non-sequitur.

Repealing Section 230 would not create new causes of action. If your beef is that social media companies can control what you see and whether you're allowed to post--repealing Section 230 would do absolutely nothing to address that.

4/ I don't even know what the hell *this* is.

Whether or not Google and Parler are both protected by Section 230 (and they are) has absolutely nothing to do with whether one might decide it does not want to do business with the other.

There is such a thing as a dumb question.

5/ The next thought does not fare much better.

First, companies are subject to *some* regulation. But those regs can't violate the First Amendment.

Second, no Section 230 does not make Twitter a state actor, and nobody with any idea what they are talking about would think that.

6/ Stupid trope alert. See #3:, courtesy of @Popehat.

And like...what are you even trying to say?

popehat.com/2015/05/19/how…

7/ It should come as no surprise that Tim Burke closes with yet another non-sequitur.

Companies are just as allowed to not listen (or host) speech as you and I.

Tim Burke may want to ask those people the difference between getting banned from Twitter and getting executed.

8/ Tim Burke of Pahrump, I give your inane, uninformed thoughts zero stars and award you one bulbous red nose.

Behold, @jess_miers, a brand new species of "what the fuck are you even talking about" Section 230 takes.