While Democracy Burns, Democrats Prioritize… Demolishing Section 230?
While an unelected tech billionaire is effectively orchestrating a coup of the US government, violating federal law with apparent impunity, and disclaiming all responsibility for the chaos he’…
You could be forgiven at this point if you think that the Democrats are purposefully just helping fascism along on it's way.
Sure, removing Section 230 means that comment sections and user-generated content will likely just...disappear from the internet.
But I'm sure incentivizing these companies to basically become one-way communications mediums like television will somehow help the rampant censorship and abuse.
Further, it's yet to be even seen how much the Supreme Court is going to let Trump get away with. The courts may be out last enforcement mechanism, and the courts don't have police of their own to enforce their rulings. The US Marshalls report to Trump directly.
God, they're painfully useless and history will remember them as dilly-dallying fuckwits or worse co-conspirators hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy.
if you are a dem hating fundamentalist that helped get trump elected then yeah i can see why you would see them as fascist
even the article says
most cases against them would still fail on First Amendment grounds
this is just an attempt to hold them accountable for the weoponised democracy destroying lie machine social media has become
attempting to make the democrats look like nazi collaborators takes the heat off the campaign against harris that got tump elected
i hope daddy putin is suitably grateful for your hard work destroying the US
I can sort of see the justification: the nazi hate machine is powered by twitter, youtube, et al having 230 as a shield to hide behind, and once they start being liable all that hate and outrage bait is likely to evaporate very quickly. It's an ass-backwards way of getting there, but I can see a train of thought where it made some kind of sense.
Yes, but this would require someone to enforce “Nazis bad” and lol @ thinking the current admin would do anything but clearly define anything to the left of Hitler as hate speech.
did you campaign like this against the dems during the election too?
Some people cannot do a lot of active campaigning for health reasons. The person you just asked that question to is one of them. I just thought you should know that.
The article is by Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt. To wit:
Jul 29, 2023Mike Masnick, who founded Techdirt in 1998, writes for an influential audience of lawmakers, C.E.O.s and activists. Somehow, he's still an optimist about the promise of technology.
Well if he's got the ear of influential muckety-mucks what is he telling them? Who is his Senator? Also, not to nitpick but he doesn't actually sound optimistic.
Ooh he's credited with coining "the Streisand effect" so that's cool.
They don't listen to him, my friend.
And "optimistic about technology" is different from "optimistic about US politics". But either way, if people actually think there's no hope, they often don't bother saying anything at all. Listen to the words, look at the actions. Don't read too much into tone.
Dems and repubs are the the same side of the same coin dipped in dog shit as far as im concerned.
Can I quote that when people say "bOtH sIDEs" is a straw man and no one actually argues it?
Sure.
I want to suggest if you live in a neighborhood of 1/3 acre properties: begin planning to convert the entire unbuilt property to some form of agriculture share and split growing responsibiity with willing neighbors be concerned and give aid to any in need accept that your local community starts the process to change the larger congress a person is not stupid, people are democracy only burns from the base up
Can you stop spamming that everywhere? Make a post if you want to.
Also, punctuation is your friend.
also, when people offer information that causes panic, why not offer useful solutions that do not infringe on anyone offering suggestions?
basically forcing facepals and the xitter to pay for moderation.
there's three dems and three republQans on it, and it's not the worst idea in the world, but it's a vain attempt to have something, anything be bipartisan which - we all know how that goes.
If hell freezes over again it'll be gutted by amendments and ultimately need to be cleaned up by whatever billionaire pays to run the US next.
Blanket removing Section 230 does literally the opposite. Without it platforms are only liable for user generated content if they moderate it. before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content. If they didn't moderate they would be considered a content distributor, like a bookstore, which isn't liable for the content of the material they distribute. So repealing it means any website with user generated content would effectively be required to operate like 4chan or Usenet.
before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content.
So you're saying facebook and twitter who both have had moderation for many years are liable for the content published under that organization?
I don't think so. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong if you got it.