07-02-2020, 05:55 PM
(07-02-2020, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A person can be conservative and a registered Democrat. You're engaging in a very binary mode of thinking on this issue.
You lost me again. Are you saying that "bias against conservatives" is not a political issue? What difference does it make what party they are registered under? "Conservative" is still a political identification.
(07-02-2020, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Twitter, for example, does not take steps against this misuse in an equal manner as they should based on their terms of service. This is analogous to a firearms dealer not exercising their due diligence in selling a firearm to a prohibited person.
This is the crux of the fallacy. The PLCAA does not even apply when a gun maker acts negligently or in any manner where it could be held civilly or criminally responsible for the resulting damage. They are still subject to any regular "products liability" claims. Not following the rules of who can buy their guns would clearly be an action that would open them up to liability
If the internet providers act negligently in any way that results in damages then they should also be held liable. But they have not done anything like that. Their "rules of service" are not laws or government regulations. Their actions have not resulted in any damages.
To illustrate the point. Selling guns to mentally ill convicted felons would make a gunmaker liable for damages. Just selling guns to Conservatives would NOT. If they swore they would only sell guns to conservatives, but they lied and sold some to liberals they still would NOT be liable for any damages caused by a criminal using one of their guns.
If internet providers conspire with a foreign country to influence our elections then they should be held liable. But if they have a liberal bias they should not.
This argument from the right is a logical fallacy called a "false equivalency". They say it is "apples to apples" but it is really "apples to oranges".
