• motionofethre@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 小时前

    Yeah. I’m not suggesting TOS indicates guilt, but just the “I can’t control my users” argument is void.

    • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 小时前

      They can’t control their users once provisioning them. Once again, this is not different than any local restaurant.

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 小时前

      May I ask why FB, Twitter, etc. get protection from liability from 3rd party content under Section 230 of the Communications Act but these folks don’t? They both have a TOS and reserve the right to refuse service.

      • atmothin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 小时前

        Epstein ring communicated a lot through Gmail for years and they still never went after those involved nor Google

        @[email protected] how would you explain Google still not being sanctioned based on your logic?

      • doben@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 小时前

        Capitalist business vs. anti-capitalist activism. What’s happening is repression by a capitalist state against antifascist organisation, nobody cares about laws.
        The antifascist structures can’t effectively work inside the rules of a system designed by and for capitalists and the law (in this case) does not exactly include foreign structures. The US (and its corpos) does all kinds of unlawful things outside of its borders, if you haven’t noticed. However, the law shields domestic corporations from foreign laws, as they are usually headquartered in the US and only need to adhere to US law as this is only applied domestically.