Hacker News Reader

It does not surprise me at all. You can meme and rage all you want, but once you translate that to physical violence no self respecting company will do business with you.

If their CEO had kept his mouth shut they might have had a chance, but they never can seem to do that.

View on HN

It’s all about legal liability.

When people die lawsuits fly.

Perhaps it’s more nuanced than my understanding, but sites/companies are sheltered from liability for unprotected (illegal) speech posted by users — that is/was the whole point of the communications decency act section 230. Lawsuits may fly, but would be quickly dismissed.

Maybe if your business existed solely to host, or encouraged unprotected speech (threats, fraud, defamation) you’d find your company in trouble.

Amusingly, if section 230 was repealed, Cheeto would be banned instantly. No way Twitter would want to be liable for his incitement.

I’d say people (using the term loosely) in his sphere should think of that, but that would require a level of self awareness that’s clearly lacking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com