The Supreme Court will be answering this question before long in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC –
Background summary by the guys at Not the Bee:
Three decades ago, lawmakers protected internet companies by passing Section 230, a provision that exempts them from liability if someone says or does something illegal on their site. The argument is that a website like Facebook is not a publisher that condones or controls what is being written on the site; therefore, it should not be liable for lawsuits. But as we've seen from exposés like The Twitter Files, these websites ARE acting like publishers by choosing what content is allowed based on their ideological preferences. If Facebook bans sites like ours for posting stories that refer to men in wigs as men, then the argument goes that they should be liable to all the legal bindings of a formal publisher. If Section 230 is repealed, it would drastically change free speech on the internet... but not in all good ways...
In 1847 Christian immigrants from Holland founded the town of Pella in Iowa. The name is connected to Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem to Pella, a Greek Hellenistic city.
Just down the road is Ottumwa. Earlier this week a City Council meeting began the proceedings with an invocation to Satan:
“Dear Dark Father,
"Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat from the tree of knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old."
It ended with the cry, "Hail Satan."
As plague hysteria begins spreading across headlines around the world, there is one detail almost nobody is talking about: governments and military biodefense programs have already poured major resources into developing dozens of plague vaccines.
More than 21 plague-vaccine candidates are under development, spanning mRNA, self-amplifying RNA, recombinant protein, viral-vector, live-attenuated and other technologies.
--- Nicholas Hulscher