Correct. Right now social media is protected because theoretically they are a news and information aggregator they don’t publish anything per se but it all flows through them.
The minute they started selecting what we should know and not know and banning people for wrong think...they became a publisher and should be treated accordingly.
Right. Editors belong to publishers. Offensive content may be one thing, and there is a universal sense of that (what would your grandma slap you for saying in the parlor), but differing
viewpoints being censored is something different.
To me, the obscenity is the blatant disrespect of the office of the President of the United States, in that these people have decided we can't hear from the POTUS on their platforms, because of their political bias. There is no excuse for striping a call for peaceful dispersal at the Capitol from their platforms, except to perpetuate the fiction that somehow the POTUS was responsible for the reaction of American People to the Congress' handling (or refusal to) of blatant fraud.
As usual, the Democrats and other Leftists are blaming the victims of their crimes for the crimes they, themselves, have committed.
While many of the 'news' publishers have long censored the POTUS' (and others) words by showing video and 'interpreting' what was allegedly said for their viewers, rather than present the actual person(s) words, or simply omitted reporting on the speech, to censor the speech of the president by removing access to the platform and deleting posts made by the POTUS, especially ones calling for peace and to stand down from any violence.
