Internet Censorship.

[tomdalton22]

https://youtu.be/t3n8McnmBGI

that was terrible

 

[Michchamp]

This is just all kinds of stupid. If Republicans won't sign onto an antitrust action, that doesn't mean they're doing nothing - apparently you're too thick to understand that....

Okay, we'll just have to disagree on the rest of that, but again, I ask: what are they doing?

 

[Michchamp]

that was terrible

That's really surprising. Some posters here - notable for their great senses of humor - have claimed the Babylon Bee is the funniest thing on the internet. Or if not the funniest, than at least actually funny.

 

[tigermud]

that was terrible

I agree but posted it anyway because sometimes something can be so dumb and terrible that's what makes it funny.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's really surprising. Some posters here - notable for their great senses of humor - have claimed the Babylon Bee is the funniest thing on the internet. Or if not the funniest, than at least actually funny.

One horrible skit doesn't suddenly make all the very funny jokes not funny. Just like if you ever get something right, it won't suddenly validate all the garbage you've been posting for 10+ years.

 

[tinselwolverine]

that was terrible

So the alien brings a message that all lives matter and the crux of a utopian society is forgiveness.

The humans argue, so the alien kills them all.

Okay.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So the alien brings a message that all lives matter and the crux of a utopian society is forgiveness.

The humans argue, so the alien kills them all.

Okay.

The dentist that keeps accidentally injecting himself with numbing agent is way better.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay, we'll just have to disagree on the rest of that, but again, I ask: what are they doing?

Republican Senator Josh Hawley has introduced legislation to amend section 230 while your Republican Senator Ted Cruz is advocating for a complete repeal of section 230 but because of this, most of it is happening at the state level in places like Texas, Florida and Wisconsin...

Here's an ABC piece that says Republicans in 24 states are pushing similar legislation.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I agree but posted it anyway because sometimes something can be so dumb and terrible that's what makes it funny.

I didn?t hate it. I was looking to see if I could find out who plays the chick. I didn?t but I did come across this.

 

[Spartanmack]

I didn?t hate it.

I didn't hate it either, but it wasn't good. Eddie Haskell is way funnier.

I was looking to see if I could find out who plays the chick. I didn?t but I did come across this.

That was funny - up there with this and this.

 

[Michchamp]

Republican Senator Josh Hawley has introduced legislation to amend section 230 while your Republican Senator Ted Cruz is advocating for a complete repeal of section 230 but because of this, most of it is happening at the state level in places like Texas, Florida and Wisconsin...

Here's an ABC piece that says Republicans in 24 states are pushing similar legislation.

do you know what section 230 does?

it gives websites immunity from being treated as a publisher if defamatory or otherwise legally harmful content is posted on them.

it would not change censorship... it would in fact curtail free speech, as these websites could be liable for everything some idiot posts on them.

And repealing 230 wouldn't stop facebook, twitter, etc. from deleting posts or banning users... which is was what you fuckwits are bitching about. in fact, by removing their legal cover from being held to be a publisher, it would make them more likely to ban and remove more users.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I didn't hate it either, but it wasn't good. Eddie Haskell is way funnier.



That was funny - up there with the "Woman who is good at driving wonders if she might be transgender."

Isn?t it ?if she?s a 10 and looks and zero in crazy, she?s a dude.??

 

[Spartanmack]

do you know what section 230 does?

it gives websites immunity from being treated as a publisher if defamatory or otherwise legally harmful content is posted on them.

it would not change censorship... it would in fact curtail free speech, as these websites could be liable for everything some idiot posts on them.

And repealing 230 wouldn't stop facebook, twitter, etc. from deleting posts or banning users... which is was what you fuckwits are bitching about. in fact, by removing their legal cover from being held to be a publisher, it would make them more likely to ban and remove more users.

It provides immunity to social media platforms for content on their sites because they claim they're not "publishers." The argument from Republicans is this protection is what enables them to censor and "fact check" content from users. Removing their Section 230 protection, because they are censoring and "fact checking" content would mean they're just like publishers and liable for content - they can be sued. They either keep their immunity by ceasing to censor and label or comment on content or you turn them into what they are - partisan left wing media outlets accountable for their actions.

Edit: also, I know you don't read your own links so I doubt you read mine but each of those articles talks about Republican's in 24 states proposing legislation to ban social media platforms from censoring user content.

 

[Spartanmack]

Isn?t it ?if she?s a 10 and looks and zero in crazy, she?s a dude.??

or a unicorn - has to be one or the other.

 

[tigermud]

The dentist that keeps accidentally injecting himself with numbing agent is way better.

Or maybe just force inoculations under the guise of grave danger will robingson.

 

[Michchamp]

It provides immunity to social media platforms for content on their sites because they claim they're not "publishers." The argument from Republicans is this protection is what enables them to censor and "fact check" content from users. Removing their Section 230 protection, because they are censoring and "fact checking" content would mean they're just like publishers and liable for content - they can be sued. They either keep their immunity by ceasing to censor and label or comment on content or you turn them into what they are - partisan left wing media outlets accountable for their actions.

Edit: also, I know you don't read your own links so I doubt you read mine but each of those articles talks about Republican's in 24 states proposing legislation to ban social media platforms from censoring user content.

you can't pre-empt a federal law with a state law.

the republican parties in all these states have lawyers (presumably) who also know that, and so they know these laws are simply pandering to people like you.

Read Section 230. Or even just read the wikipedia entry. It does What I said it does; it doesn't do what you think it does. Repealing it won't do what you think it will.

it applies to ALL websites, in fact, not just the social media sites you're all bitching about for blocking your nonsense.

Even DSF where we post could be subject to liability as a publisher for the things posted here, if 230 were repealed.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you can't pre-empt a federal law with a state law.

the republican parties in all these states have lawyers (presumably) who also know that, and so they know these laws are simply pandering to people like you.

Read Section 230. Or even just read the wikipedia entry. It does What I said it does; it doesn't do what you think it does. Repealing it won't do what you think it will.

it applies to ALL websites, in fact, not just the social media sites you're all bitching about for blocking your nonsense.

Even DSF where we post could be subject to liability as a publisher for the things posted here, if 230 were repealed.

I think it would lead to massive consolidation. Little guys couldn't handle the repeal. Can't afford the lawyers. Hope everybody likes twitter and facebook.

 

[Michchamp]

I think it would lead to massive consolidation. Little guys couldn't handle the repeal. Can't afford the lawyers. Hope everybody likes twitter and facebook.

All you need to know is that if Republicans propose a law, it's GOOD. :nod: :tup:

If Democrats propose a law, it's BAAAAAAAD. :no:

No need to read or even try to understand anything about the CDA/sect. 230, or the Supremacy Clause. No need to even read anything beyond RepublicanDaily.com about what is good and what is bad. You can trust they will not provide coverage slanted to one side of the political spectrum.

 

[Spartanmack]

you can't pre-empt a federal law with a state law.

the republican parties in all these states have lawyers (presumably) who also know that, and so they know these laws are simply pandering to people like you.

Read Section 230. Or even just read the wikipedia entry. It does What I said it does; it doesn't do what you think it does. Repealing it won't do what you think it will.

it applies to ALL websites, in fact, not just the social media sites you're all bitching about for blocking your nonsense.

Even DSF where we post could be subject to liability as a publisher for the things posted here, if 230 were repealed.

there's no need to repeal it. Just label the social media platforms what they are - content publishers and strip the platforms of their 230 protections. Everyone's happy - DSF is safe from getting sued for the stupid stuff you post, and FB can't silence opposition for the Democratic party, problem solved. By the way, the state laws aren't about repealing 230, they're mostly about preventing censorship.

 

[zyxt9]

I'm not saying this is the case, this is more of a curiosity question that my initial searches did not provide an answer.

I realize a singular US state has never successfully nullified a federal law, but I am wondering if an overwhelming majority (2/3 or 3/4) of states supported nullification that a federal law would result in a nullification?