Nope. And that video is itself- not surprisingly- factually incorrect on a number of points, such as:
Section 230 does
not mandate that any particular website shall host "a true diversity of political discourse". That is a flat-out lie. And oooh, look at this nugget I just dug up:
"In October 2017, PragerU filed a federal lawsuit against YouTube's parent company,
Google, claiming that 37 of its videos were unfairly demonetized or flagged so that they could only be viewed with "restricted mode filtering", which limits views based on viewer characteristics such as age. PragerU claimed that Google's demonetization and flagging violated the
First Amendment by arguing that YouTube was a
public forum. In March 2018,
U.S. District JudgeLucy Koh dismissed the case, ruling that because Google was a private company, PragerU had failed to show that Google had infringed its free speech rights. In February 2020, the
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling."
Absolutely hilarious. You're using a website for support that doesn't even know that the First Amendment does not apply to users of social media platforms.
Maybe you were getting tired of being pummeled about the First Amendment and decided to try veering off into Section 230 territory. Not workin' out too well for you is it?
