Joe Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 6 minutes ago, SilentWorld said: meet the new boss same as the old boss Exactly the same, ya. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Just now, SilentWorld said: meet the new boss same as the old boss It's an issue kind of like Trump targeting only billionaires he didn't like for anti-trust lawsuits and such. Trump wanted to get rid of 230 for petty reasons, but don't many on this same board want that outcome? I have seen plenty of "End Facebook/Twitter" sentiment here. I actually lean the other way. These platforms have done damage, but I still prefer to er on the side of free speech. Even if it's dumb or harmful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 This doesn't do much for free speech but it does mean that Facebook and Twitter probably won't exist as significant moderation would be required Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 17 minutes ago, Jason said: Biden wants Sec. 230 gone, calls tech “totally irresponsible,” “little creeps” ARSTECHNICA.COM Biden had harsh words about tech, seemingly spurred by anger with Facebook. Pardon my ignorance, but in my limited understanding, Section 230 actually *makes* it possible for Trump and his supporters to post the batshit crazy stuff they do. If it was repealed, people could not only sue Trump for his online content, but also sue Twitter or Facebook. To prevent that, Twitter and Facebook would obviously err on the side of caution, and just take down all questionable content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Just now, osxmatt said: Pardon my ignorance, but in my limited understanding, Section 230 actually *makes* it possible for Trump and his supporters to post the batshit crazy stuff they do. If it was repealed, people could not only sue Trump for his online content, but also sue Twitter or Facebook. To prevent that, Twitter and Facebook would obviously err on the side of caution, and just take down all questionable content. Agreed. I see no problem with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: It's an issue kind of like Trump targeting only billionaires he didn't like for anti-trust lawsuits and such. Trump wanted to get rid of 230 for petty reasons, but don't many on this same board want that outcome? I have seen plenty of "End Facebook/Twitter" sentiment here. I actually lean the other way. These platforms have done damage, but I still prefer to er on the side of free speech. Even if it's dumb or harmful. Ending 230 doesn't end Facebook or Twitter. It would have a more serious effect on this site than any of those larger social media sites. It would just lead to greater moderation and anyone that has the resources to automate that come out on top. Folks just want to see the hilarious fallout of all these conservatives being banned from everything from YouTube to Reddit for liability reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: Ending 230 doesn't end Facebook or Twitter. It would have a more serious effect on this site than any of those larger social media sites. It would just lead to greater moderation and anyone that has the resources to automate that come out on top. Folks just want to see the hilarious fallout of all these conservatives being banned from everything from YouTube to Reddit for liability reasons. That's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 6 minutes ago, Uaarkson said: Agreed. I see no problem with this. I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uaarkson Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Just now, osxmatt said: I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it. If I can’t have desert, no one can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Just now, SuperSpreader said: That's fine. That part is fine. The bigger issue for me is the effect this would have on cloud-based email and messaging/chat clients like Discord or WhatsApp. They'd be equally liable for content and I really don't want to see what that looks like. Would someone like Signal even be able to exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, osxmatt said: I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it. They think removing their liability protections opens them up to censorship lawsuits, even if censorship lawsuits against private entities isn't a thing. Twitter can't violate your first amendment rights, but they REALLY think they can and do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: This doesn't do much for free speech but it does mean that Facebook and Twitter probably won't exist as significant moderation would be required 9 minutes ago, Uaarkson said: Agreed. I see no problem with this. If done properly (exclusions for common message boards, review sites, etc) then it's not bad. But it won't be done that way. Facebook and Twitter will likely lobby for 230 to be totally repealed (rather than a new version made) because it will leave only the giants standing. They will be able to afford the thousands of moderators required to scan and remove bad posts, while places like Yelp, Resetera, or D1P will not. If any site can be sued for what anyone says on it, then 99% of sites simply won't allow posting or comments of any kind. It will silence all online discussion outside of mega corporations who can afford the AI/human moderation required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: They think removing their liability protections opens them up to censorship lawsuits, even if censorship lawsuits against private entities isn't a thing. Twitter can't violate your first amendment rights, but they REALLY think they can and do. Why can my friend post fun recipe ideas all day long, but the minute I post about George Soros eating Hillary's baby blood, I get shadow banned?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 Considering we're talking about Trump let's never quote The Who in regards to Trump and Biden. Because Trump took a while but I feel much more comfortable now saying he actually beat Bush in suckage and is on another level of hurting this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 1 hour ago, osxmatt said: I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it. They think their voices are the ones being unjustly suppressed, not that they're the people benefitting from it. It's hilarious, I know. Cognitive dissonance. Leopards, faces. Etc. My favorite part: the slight smile in the second panel. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: Considering we're talking about Trump let's never quote The Who in regards to Trump and Biden. Because Trump took a while but I feel much more comfortable now saying he actually beat Bush in suckage and is on another level of hurting this country. I remember there were some on the left who would chastise people for saying Trump was worse than Bush because of the Iraq War body count. Those takes calmed down a lot in 2020. But I maintain Trump was always worse than Bush. He just hadn't confronted a crisis yet(though Maria should have been a fucking warning sign). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: I remember there were some on the left who would chastise people for saying Trump was worse than Bush because of the Iraq War body count. Those takes calmed down a lot in 2020. But I maintain Trump was always worse than Bush. He just hadn't confronted a crisis yet(though Maria should have been a fucking warning sign). I was that person in the first sentence. I definitely think too many on the left will look fondly at a Republican who did a lot of wrong because a really bad Republican appears later. But the COVID body count, which somebody's probably calculating now as to how many lives would be here if Trump took it seriously and told others to do so as well instead of trying to get past it, and now a US Capitol under attack to the point that foreign terrorists couldn't even do what we just did, skyrockets him up there. At this point, Bush did help plant the seeds same as many other Republicans, but I can safely say I long for this: Lots of things sucked. His presidency sucked. But this alone puts him over Trump's disastrous last few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Trump gets "credit" for every covid death, and at the end of the day that will rival the Iraq war so they're both world class criminals who deserve to hang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Trump gets "credit" for every covid death, and at the end of the day that will rival the Iraq war so they're both world class criminals who deserve to hang Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Joe said: Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me. Until covid it was bush being worse by sheer body count alone. Now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaljedi Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Until covid it was bush being worse by sheer body count alone. Now? No, fuck it, at least the Republic was still in one piece at the end of his administration. No one was meeting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to make sure he didn't have a hissy and set off a nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Joe said: Beautiful! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePi Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Isn't the NRA already hanging by a thread what with all the in-fighting and lawsuits about embezzling money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 If the NRA goes under it'll be icing on the cake. Even some gun owners, and 2nd Amendment advocates don't like the NRA because they don't really do anything for gun owners, they're just a lobby group for gun manufacturers. There are plenty of better pro gun organizations to join without the shady past of the NRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 If Trump accelerated the collapse of the republic that would be the one good thing he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Joe said: Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me. Neck and turkey gizzard, you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Arizona GOP censured/going to censure Cindy McCain for endorsing Joe Biden. Taking on the serious issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 AZGOP looking to be as competitive as the CAGOP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberon Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator? 2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other? 3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, Oberon said: so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator? 2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other? 3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time? Probably same start with a 4 and 6 year term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, Oberon said: so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator? 2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other? 3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time? Option 2 is what seems to have happened in Hawaii. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Doesn’t PR already have Senators? They just don’t have voting privileges. If they became a state I would assume there existing Senators would just get all rights and privileges and they would continue their term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: Doesn’t PR already have Senators? They just don’t have voting privileges. If they became a state I would assume there existing Senators would just get all rights and privileges and they would continue their term. wat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.