And to simplify - I get the definitional distinction between publisher and platform - the part I’m saying doesn’t exist in the current law is the concept that in order to enjoy Immunity from liability for the content of posts on their site, that they have to agree to be politically neutral. It’s not in the law - it’s not in the legislative intent - it’s not in the penumbra of the law - there is no authority for the proposition.
Well, I can't mind read, but I'm pretty sure the intent in 1996 was to allow platforms to exist where all viewpoints could be heard without the platform being held liable. The probably hadn't envisioned a Twitter or Facebook back then that would hold a dominant market position and would aggressively censor some points of view, based on politics ... although points of view from others that are far more inflammatory than "I'm a doctor and successfully treated Covid with HCQ" are perfectly fine with said platforms. In fact, I feel pretty confident in saying they didn't envision that when they envisioned a free and open internet.
You lost me on the 8th amendment thing.
That was an attempt at humor, and obviously a poor one ... as in forcing you to read the entirety of a page regarding subject matter eligibility in patent law would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
I just don't get the anti HCQ movement.
If you don't get it, try being more cynical.
You'll get it in almost no time after that.
Hey mojo - what’s this showing?
Is it showing deaths have declined?
It looks like itms down close to zero... that is surprising so I am just asking in case I’m missing something
It doesn't show zero, but it shows they are significantly lower and have declined to a fraction of what they were at the peak ... this in spite of a larger number of reported infections (which, in turn, probably has a lot to do with increased testing).
It's also fair to observe that as the number of deaths has declined so dramatically from its peak, the emphasis in reporting has shifted to number of total cases.