Food For Thought: Do the nine US Supreme Court judges need to side step section 230 in this 9-0 ruling in favour of the online social media platforms?

"One of the main criticisms against social media companies like YouTube, they appears to have their cake and eat it too. Because on one hand whether it's Google, Twitter, YouTube which is owned by Google, Facebook, or Instagram, they all call themselves platforms which in theory makes them not liable for the content that their uses post.

"Their argument is that they're just like a phone company. They provide the service and they're not responsible for whatever people might say over the phone. However, that is the way it works in theory because in reality for the past six or seven years now, these social media companies have been acting more and more like publishers. 

"They choose which videos or which types of content get promoted. They choose which publishers are authoritative and therefore deserve more prominent placement. They have so-called fact checkers which are pretty much like editors in a newspaper which quite literally censor whatever videos they deem to be untrue. They have certain narrative that they absolutely need to push out such as the narrative surrounding climate change and then of course there is the ever-present algorithm which does just take down whatever videos contain keywords that the YouTub executives have deemed to be taboo."

More in the Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov video.

Comments in the video:

Jeff Lochner: "This is good news. If they are now proven to be held blameless for true terrorist content, then there is NO excuse for stopping conservative content. The next lawsuit shall be for damages for them selectively blocking conservative content."

Five_31: "Theres plenty of content that is unrelated to conservatism being banned. Sometimes for reasons that are very stupid, and sometimes very technical. A system that youtube staff can abuse at will."

Centurione: "I disagree. Listen carefully and understand the implications. Section 230 remains untouched as their right to purge the content anyway they want."

Nicole C: "Good point."

Anthony Makley: "Why hasn't a lawsuit happened over free speech."

Jeremy Ray: "Exactly. All or Nothing at all. Gov wants to drive on both sides of the road."

Electric Tofu Muffins: "I agree."

Note: If section 230 stipulate that online social media platforms are not accountable for what are posted then why do the nine Supreme Court judges need to side step section 230 in the 9-0 ruling favouring the online social media platforms? Also if these online social media platforms have section 230 to protect them, why do they need to censor anything at all? Of course, in this case they have an agenda to follow. Agenda 2030, the Great Reset.