Shitgibbon Goooooooonne !

[troglodiet]

It's a slippery slope...

[GogLais]

It’s interesting, people see social media as belonging to them when in fact they’re private companies. There’s a right of free speech but there’s no right to free speech on Twitter or Facebook, just as print media doesn’t have to express every opinion,

This is exactly the reason why the idea that social media should be regulated as a utility has gained currency over the last 7-8 years.

If I wright a letter to a legitimate newspaper; & say that someone is a pedophile; with zero evidence; they won't publish my libel.

If I open an account; & do the same; there's a good chance that the libel will remain there until the person I've libeled is made aware of it, & acts.

This is that rarest of occasions where the shitgibbon is actually correct; but for the wrong reasons obviously.

There is no good reason why companies making money off social media shouldn't be liable for an libel performed on that platform.

If a statement is legitimate, & in the public interest; it isn't libelous; & therefore there is no jeopardy in making it.

The bottom line is that all media; virtual & physical should be held to the same standard. If ONN, or NewsMax, or Fox, or jrduffus decides to libel Dominion; it shouldn't matter one damn inch.

I agree that the laws of libel, defamation, etc should extend to social media and how they monitor billions of posts to protect themselves is their problem. However, I'm not sure about forcing social media companies to give a voice to everyone. Nobody forces the Daily Mail to give the Labour Party a voice.