Joe Biden: Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses (wsj.com) 147
Congress can find common ground on the protection of privacy, competition and American children, says U.S. President Joe Biden. In an op-ed at Wall Street Journal, he shares why he has pushed for legislation to hold Big Tech accountable. From the start of his administration, says Biden, he has embraced three broad principles for reform: First, we need serious federal protections for Americans' privacy. That means clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data -- your internet history, your personal communications, your location, and your health, genetic and biometric data. It's not enough for companies to disclose what data they're collecting. Much of that data shouldn't be collected in the first place. These protections should be even stronger for young people, who are especially vulnerable online. We should limit targeted advertising and ban it altogether for children.
Second, we need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use. That's why I've long said we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites. We also need far more transparency about the algorithms Big Tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.
Third, we need to bring more competition back to the tech sector. My administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order. But there is more we can do. When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors -- or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform. My vision for our economy is one in which everyone -- small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs -- can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies. To realize that vision, and to make sure American tech keeps leading the world in cutting-edge innovation, we need fairer rules of the road. The next generation of great American companies shouldn't be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.
Second, we need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use. That's why I've long said we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites. We also need far more transparency about the algorithms Big Tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.
Third, we need to bring more competition back to the tech sector. My administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order. But there is more we can do. When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors -- or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform. My vision for our economy is one in which everyone -- small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs -- can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies. To realize that vision, and to make sure American tech keeps leading the world in cutting-edge innovation, we need fairer rules of the road. The next generation of great American companies shouldn't be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.
Wont happen (Score:2)
Re: Wont happen (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is true - but no matter what we do there is going to be one pretty powerful US government. It will always be either A or THE source of abuse. However the DOJ, CDC, Homeland Security, pick your goon squad can easily put their thumbs on a handful of big tech Google, MS, Twitter, Facebook and control the entire town square.
We would be better off if there were more independent actors, to many for them to control
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of those things which is easy to believe. If I had to guess, I'd think it more than half likely that you're telling the truth.
The problem is that every single time it comes up, nobody can reference evidence. It's a very believable thing, which so far appears to have not actually happened.
It would be so easy for me to be wrong. I'm shocked that I'm not wrong. I should be wrong. I probably am wrong. But all the evidence says I'm right, and no censorship happened.
Someone please put me out of my mis
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We need a gaslight mod.
Re: (Score:3)
One of my great-great grandfathers' jobs was "modding" gas lights. He would have been very confused by this new meaning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with the Twitter Files or what they are showing has happened with regard to Federal Govt. pressure/influence to suppress citizen speech on social media.
I didn't have to read far..the date on your document is November 29th (and I've not read far enough yet to figure out WTF "Elvis Chan" is)...
The Twitter files didn't start being published by Matt Taibbi till December 2, 2022.
If you're going to cite something that di
Re: Wont happen (Score:5, Informative)
People have testified under oath, but that doesn't change the fact that the Twitter files clearly show government officials pressuring and otherwise corecing twitter employees to remove content they don't like. They even show FBI officials pressuring Twitter executives to give false statements about the extent of Russian influence on their platform.
Re: Wont happen (Score:4, Informative)
[Citation Needed] The actual emails that were filtered and released by the journalists do not show this. They show that an ex-FBI counsol who worked at Twitter decided to kill the Hunter laptop story due to being "hacked material". They also showed the FBI warning Twitter about possible meddling. The only things that offered any sort of collusion or coercion was the editorial opinions of the conservative journalists who filtered the material (and never released all of the source).
Re: Wont happen (Score:5, Informative)
No citation needed, simply read the Twitter files for yourself. Among other things, they show messages from former FBI agents working at Twitter thanking current FBI agents for helping them convince Twitter execs to ban certain users. They show the FBI sending lists of users to be banned. The FBI, in some cases, even mentions that they are forwarding requests from the CIA and other intelligence agencies to Twitter. This is a huge scandal. The FBI was/is controlling what we were/are allowed to see on Twitter to a massive extent.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has a process that anyone can flag things for review. The FBI went through the same channels everyone else does, and got treated exactly the same. Most of the time the FBI flagged something for review, Twitter chose not to act on it.
The interesting part here is that the FBI spent as much time flagging stuff for review as they did considering how little it accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a process that is available to anyone. They have contacts at Twitter to whom they send requests for takedowns. I can't do that, and you probably can't either. But, just for the sake of argument, what difference would it make if anyone could do it? Wouldn't it still be the FBI censoring conversations and removing people from the site? These aren't people who would have been removed otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Do the Twitter Files show actual Twitter execs being involved in the decision, or just triage staff?
You should, perhaps, read this Techdirt post [techdirt.com], and this later one [techdirt.com]. Your "this is a huge scandal" is based upon incorrect information, and you're missing what scandal there is because of it.
Re: Wont happen (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wont happen (Score:4, Informative)
The Twitter files also showed that the FBI paid Twitter more than 3 Million Dollars to do this. Your tax money at work.
When the FBI requests information from a business, they are required by law to reimburse them for the time spent processing the request. It's to prevent cooperating with investigations from being an unreasonable burden on businesses. That's what the payments are for.
Re: (Score:2)
They lied under oath about shadow banning, and the FBI issued takedown requests against US citizens making satirical comments about US elections, amongst other abuses. Citation provided: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to these files?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is one about the FBI censoring accounts they don't like, [twitter.com] though it isn't the only relevant thread. Here is a link to the first 12 threads [twitter.com] so you can look through them if you are interested.
Re: (Score:2)
I know your sig is a joke with the /s missing, but you're just feeding the trolls now. And by making their BS more visible, you help them accomplish their mission.
But I'm increasingly convinced George Dyson was on to something when he asked "What if the cost of machines that think is people who don't?" But "can't and never wanted to think" in the case of trolls. And Turing was correct when he predicted we would say and even believe things like "machines that think", even though he clearly didn't believe it.
Re: Wont happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm partial to citation 103.
David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said Twitter was free to decide what content to allow on its platform, and both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House were free to make content suggestions
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious that someone working at a place called the "First Amendment Coalition" is apparently unconcerned about this. The FBI is pressuring and otherwise manipulating Twitter to censor and ban people they don't like? Total nothingburger. Twitter is completely free to be pressured and manipulated by the FBI into censoring and banning US citizens. Yup. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://ago.mo.gov/docs/defaul... [mo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The twitter files relate to events from two years ago, correct?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
The Communications Decency Act was created by Republicans in 1996. The original purpose of The Communications Decency Act was to allow increased censorship of radio and television by allowing the FCC to levy larger fines for broadcasting "indecent" content.
The now infamous Section 230 was added as an afterthought. Nobody noticed it at the time because there was no such thing as "social media". Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter didn't even exist. (Mark Zuckerberg was 10 years old when this law w
Re:Wont happen (Score:5, Informative)
230 was not an afterthought it was very specifically added to address issues exposed in some major lawsuits with Compuserv and Prodigy.
The same issues that surround the current generation platforms. What happened is the rest of the law got struck down by the courts and 230 basically survied standing alone because the law contained a separation clause. Which was probably a bad design... but the result was "tech" got its special protections the government got exactly none of the regulatory and enforcement power it sought.
230 wasn't an accident nor does it operate legally as the Congress that voted for it intended. It should be repealed or amended.
230 is a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake the internet lives and dies by section 230 and it absolutely operates legally. Congress has every right to regulate something global let alone national like the internet.
If you're opposed to section 230 it's either because you think you're going to get a free speech Paradise when in fact you're going to get the Gestapo or because you've stopped thinking for yourself and your favorite media outlets are telling you to be opposed.
Whatever the case destroying section 230 will destroy the internet. If that's what you want please proceed governor
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, my public square doesn't have branding, but DarkOx's does. I'm singling out DarkOx's commenting thread, but the sentiment is widespread to my eyes, so it's not a personal thing. But, I think that attitude is a bit appropriative actually. The actual real kind of appr
Re: (Score:3)
I will agree its somewhat appropriative attitude. However I think 'you didn't build that' actually applies here perhaps more than in a lot of other cases where it gets used.
These companies literally exist at the size and scale they operate BECAUSE they were able to hide behind CDA-230. They got to play by rules no other media enjoyed. They got the play in an environment where they were basically 'above the law' and the companies that adopted the least social responsibility got all the rewards. Facebook grew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't allow minors in the US to drink or smoke (legally)....and we're seeing a myriad of studies showing that it is detrimental to their mental health.
So, let's require SM sites to not allow minors on board and when they detect them, they drop those accounts, etc.
At that point that cuts a LOT of the problems out that even Bid
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably the best solution. Minors can't legally enter enforced contracts in the first place, so they really shouldn't even be doing a click-through without parental approval. Beyond that, IMHO there's certainly good cause for extending something like COPPA to all minors when it comes to social media sites.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't allow minors in the US to drink or smoke (legally)
Well, that's debatable. In many instances it's perfectly legal for minors to drink. [alcoholpro...utions.org] In Illinois, where I live, I can actually sit and drink with my 6 year old daughter at the dinner table.
Re:Wont happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Though fewer people were on the internet back then, among 1996 internet users, social media was pretty common, and possibly even the leading usage (though I don't have numbers to back that up).
Usenet was still fairly widespreadly used for discussion. So was IRC. The web was already out there, and things like user-uploads and commenting were slowly getting more common .. and then exploded right after the passage of S230. In 1997 Slashdot appeared, and by 1998 I could waste a whole damn evening doing "the rounds" on all my favorite messageboards.
These things just weren't called "social media" yet, but they certainly were social media. And regardless whatever you call it, it involved people communicating through intermediaries. And then there were the FTP sites, where someone uploads and other people download, like Aminet or the various places from which you could download Linux. That might not be "social media" but the liability issues are the same.
And all of it rested on a shaky legal foundation, where one person could be held liable for what a different person did. And the new crazy shit coming with CDA had hosts and webmasters terrified. You think Congress just pulled S230 out its ass? The People demanded S230, and CDA likely would have failed to get the votes to pass, without it.
The reasons for S230 (peoples' desire to host other users' contributions, without fear of being unfairly held liable for someone else's actions) existed back then. It's not a stupid, pointless law. It does what the people needed then and now.
Sorry you're not convinced S230 is a good idea, but you personally have been relying on S230 all along. I know this personal fact about you, AC, because I'm able to read your words instead of Slashdot taking their lawyers' advice and noping out. Every time you post here, you're making a case to keep S230, even if your post's words are against it. Keep preaching!
Re:Wont happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Please go actually read 230 - it pretty much extends its protection to all electronic services. The notion that it only applies to common carriers came from some corner I don't know where, and a lot of right-wing people have latched onto that. Its not true though!
Which is why its so important to go after the source of the trouble which is 230 itself. Its a bad law, all around. The rest of the CDA that was actually to give the government some tools to regulate the online world all got struck down leaving only 230 basically. So "-On A Computer" became this magic free pass to escaping any liability for libelous content, and all kinds of other responsibility for criminal activity that if print media or anyone else participated in would get them branded accomplices and land them in hot water.
Big tech has been able to profit massively while taking a giant dump on civil discourse. It should be stopped!
Trolls bring up common carrier (Score:2)
Like George Carlin said: It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The liability exemption is for everyone who runs an "interactive computer service," not "common carriers." The text [cornell.edu] (you might want to reread it again) doesn't even mention common carriers. Grep away if you don't believe me.
And what's this nonsense about "enforcement?" When you don't get sued because of what someone else said, that is the "enforcement."
Re: (Score:3)
You're a moron.
Section 230 protects not only all providers of interactive computer services (such as social media sites) but it also even expressly protects individual users.
The terms 'common carrier' and 'editor' are totally irrelevant to the law, and do not even appear within it.
And there is nothing in it to "enforce."
The point is to allow sites (and users, but in practice, mostly sites) to remove content or not as they see fit, for any reason or no reason at all, without being held liable either for 1) n
Re:Wont happen [because of monopoly profits] (Score:2)
Nice FP. I want to make a joke out of it, but I can't figure out how to properly parody the Fight Club rules... Something like:
Why did I think SlashHTML supported ol tags?
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the tech companies line the pockets of all the politicians ...
Well... Elon might be rolling in cash, as he keeps selling Tesla stock, but Twitter itself? Not so much.
What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:2, Informative)
Big tech has been caught red handed conspiring with intel to censor conservatives in order to help the democrats. But I didn't see any concern about that.
Re: What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
> There has been no counter claim.
Horseshit. The "counter claim" is in twitter's own words and actions; and it has been demonstrated experimentally [mashable.com] that Twitter is biased towards the right and holds the left to much stricter standards than it does conservatives. When challanged wrt/ the linked experiment, Jack Dorsey came back with some blather about how he considers it to be in "the public interest" to allow to right to spew its bile with no restrictions or consequences, but would go on holding liberal posters to Twitter's TOS. It wasn't until TFG orchestrated his attempted coup that Twitter finally decided that the republicans had finally crossed the line, and FINALLY held to the same standards of online conduct as the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm no Trump fan myself...but this rings of TDS for sure.
Trump has very little sway left over the Republican Party...look how bad his candidates did in the mid-terms that by all rights should have been a red wave landslide...
He also has show little strength in trying to woo or direct leaders on most any topic these days.
He's fading fast.....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Trump is necessary for Trumpism. He laid out the roadmap, and the Republican Party is walking the path. Even though Trump is out of office, we have not seen a return to a "normal" Republican Party. Now some of this is because gerrymandering is leading to extreme candidates, but Trump showed how much they can get away with.
Re: (Score:2)
Trumpism IS conservativism now. And the republican party IS the party of Trump.
Yeah... that's the reason I can no longer call myself conservative, and hardly ever vote Republican any more... despite 30 years of supporting the GOP pre-Trump.
That said, the failure of the red wave in 2022, on top of Trump's loss in 2020, gives me hope that the GOP may begin to realize that Trumpism is a loser, and that if they want to win they need to move back toward real conservatism.
I follow a bunch of people (Score:2)
I mean Matt Walsh literally caused a bomb threat against the children's hospital and he's still on every social media platform on the planet encouraging people to kill trans people. He does it with a wink and a nod so it's all good plus he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Big tech has been caught red handed conspiring with intel to censor conservatives in order to help the democrats. But I didn't see any concern about that.
The lie won't die, will it? It's like covid vaccines killing millions of people or goat paste curing covid.
Anything to keep the stupid riled up while their money is stolen and given to the 1%.
Here's something. If "conservatives" were being censored, why didn't they go to that failing Truth Social or Gab or any of those other anti-social sites their supporters congregate on and post their lies?
Re:What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:4, Informative)
> The lie won't die, will it? It's like covid vaccines killing millions of people or goat paste curing covid.
Ivermectin is used as a human medicine for parasites, though it doesn't help with Covid at all. There does seem to be some elevated myocarditis risk from vaccines, but it appears to be lower than the risk of dying to Covid. There are some excess deaths, but despite a lot of handwaving claiming these are due to vaccines, there's no good evidence that vaccines are related to them in any way.
> If "conservatives" were being censored, why didn't they go to that failing Truth Social or Gab
They did, but it doesn't change the part about Twitter taking marching orders from politicians about which people to censor. We already know that you see no problem with that, so you can stop repeating yourself.
Re:What about censoring of conservatives (Score:2)
There does seem to be some elevated myocarditis risk from vaccines, but it appears to be lower than the risk of dying to Covid. There are some excess deaths, but despite a lot of handwaving claiming these are due to vaccines, there's no good evidence that vaccines are related to them in any way.
True, and there's a more elevated risk of myocarditis from the actual COVID-19 virus. Excess deaths started spiking well before the vaccines were available. Different kinds of vaccines were used at different times in different countries, different states, and the excess death stats are pretty damned clear, it's the virus. They all follow the spread of the virus in different areas, not vaccination rates.
They did, but it doesn't change the part about Twitter taking marching orders from politicians about which people to censor. We already know that you see no problem with that, so you can stop repeating yourself.
You say that, then the reality is the FBI sending Twitter a list of accounts that appear to be recently c
Re:What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:4, Informative)
Here you go, Elon has been linking to them [twitter.com] as they come out.
Re:What about censoring of conservative (Score:2)
Here you go, Elon has been linking to them [twitter.com] as they come out.
Recently created accounts, possible bots that are following multiple Chinese diplomatic accounts.
That's your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, we used to have a name for government/private cooperation in censorship.
Also that's part 4 or something, you can go through Elon's timeline and find the others, which talk about other types of political censorship, including the ones where they seem to be doing something that sure looks like money laundering, taking showers with his daughter Ashley, who said they were "inappropriate", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Lovely. So who exactly is this Matt Taibbi person that musk links to? And why, precisely, should I trust in what he has to say? Skimming his wikipedia page, the only really significant publication for which he wrote is Rolling Stone, which is hardly where I'd go for political news. And that section reads like he was not engaging in actual journalism, but merely editorializing. Actually, his wikipedia page in general does not support his having a journalist's resume or credibility. And his current publ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's from the above-referenced Wikipedia article, so 'tis best to view the Twitter Files with
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Wikipedia has a well known left leaning bent...so, best to read a lot of their editorialist with some skepticism.
But at the end of the article it does have links to the actual tweets....so you can read those for yourself.
After you do, it would bode well to read analysis from a wide range of folks to get a clearer view and and background behind each of the small stories like
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Wikipedia has a well known left leaning bent...so, best to read a lot of their editorialist with some skepticism.
Dude, we can read the source. There is nothing anti-conservative in it.
First the story is censoring conservatives. Then it's pretending that search and recommendation deranking is the same thing as shadow bans or censoring. Then it turns into even though his spammy behavior was the reason not his political beliefs, that rule isn't enforced against "the other side". Then it turns into, well actually, it was.
Please for the love of god investigate this, Congress. Subpoena Twitter for everything Musk hasn'
Re:What about censoring of conservatives? (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Links, references etc. You can read them all.
This game only works with people that don't read.
Journalist David Zweig, who posted the new Twitter thread, accused the U.S. government under both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden of pressuring Twitter to elevate specific information about the coronavirus and suppress other content.
Zweig described how Trump’s team remained concerned about panic buying during the onset of the pandemic and how they approached Twitter looking for “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation” about "runs on grocery stores."
Such damning information, I can hardly unbunch my panties. Hate to tell you this, but it's a nothing burger.
But thanks for the link, I wasn't sure HOW ridiculous the "Twitter Files" were and I wasn't going to waste time checking it out except you sounded serious. Time not wasted, now I can quote enough of it to the next moron that blathers on about Twitter Files and didn't read or understand any of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets not kid our selves. Big tech is playing both sides. To think otherwise is to be an idiot. Its just that the far left is a lot more popular than that far right so they steer their marketing towards that.
If the right ever gets popular enough, we will start seeing big tech start promoting the NRA over the NAACP.
Re: (Score:2)
The Censorship is Not Limited to Conservatives (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Big tech has been caught red handed conspiring with intel to censor conservatives in order to help the democrats. But I didn't see any concern about that.
First you need to stop calling white supremacists, fraudsters, and anyone peddling gross misinformation during a public health crisis "conservatives", because it's offensive to conservatives that aren't morons. It's like a rabid revolutionary communist getting deplatformed and crying about censoring liberals.
Everyone that thinks the COVID vaccine will shrink their testicles isn't "conservative". So spare us the bullshit please.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that was true, it's hardly a tech problem. Fox News conspires with the GOP to censor progressives and moderates. If you think private companies should not be allowed to choose the politics they host, focusing on tech is ignoring even bigger problems.
Examples please (Score:3)
I am so fucking tired of the right wing's bad faith arguments here. Just massive Gish Gallops everywhere the eyes can see. Brandolini's law is the only law to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Winston Churchill said you can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else
Re: (Score:2)
those recent midterms where the GOP got millions more votes for than Democrats? Those midterms?
Now that the big tech tide turn away from liberals (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Now that the big tech tide turn away from liber (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no Biden administration prior to 2020, but there were plenty of Democrats calling to "reign in big tech".
There are plenty of Republicans calling to "reign in big tech" as well. (Nobody likes Big Tech.) DeSantis' solution was to give politicians special status to say things on social media that normal people are banned for. Greg Abbott's solution was written to regulate only the platforms he doesn't like, while conveniently exempting sites like Parler and Truth Social.
While I do appreciate the Republicans' stated goal of providing safe spaces online, it seems they don't want the same rules to apply for everyone.
Re:Now that the big tech tide turn away from liber (Score:4, Funny)
"There was no Biden administration prior to 2020"
I suspect "nomad63" is suitably embarassed and will not respond to this.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be in favor of stricter age limits on social media. The problem is that implementing it would work about as well as age limits on porn (not very well.) You would have to have the sites do some kind of ID check. Sounds onerous, but maybe it's not that big of a deal - sites like FB already require you to use your real identity, and already have enforcement steps like requiring your phone number and verifying it by SMS.
What should be brought back immediately and without question, though, is the ban on
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps let's pass laws, instead, to limit social media access and participation to those 21yrs and older?
Minors -- which is age 18 in the US, by the way -- enjoy First Amendment freedoms too, and it would be a rotten society if they didn't, yet somehow expected them to become good adults on day one of reaching their majority.
Let adults say what they want in adult places online.
So long as the owner of the place can generally also decide who is and is not allowed in. If I have a symposium, I should get to be as choosy about my guests as I like, and if I want to eject people who are being rude (whether or not because they've had too many kraters), that's my right
Re: (Score:2)
Tech was a good start, Pharma next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not Going to Happen (Score:2, Interesting)
"Team Red" and "Team Blue" are no longer capable of cooperating on anything of consequence.
They'll both continue to bicker and throw insults at each other like children because that's what their voters want.
Their cheerleaders will do the same online because God forbid that anyone should actually get up off their asses and DO something.
Hell, the Brazilian "conservatives" had a better riot that anything these pathetic American snowflakes could come up with.
I'm done with the lot of them, and the sooner this sh
Re:Not Going to Happen (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the "American Taliban" is too cheap to use their own weapons, as well as being too chickenshit to drive on the highway.
Re: (Score:2)
There are differences among the voters. Certainly Republican voters go wild for childish insults, hence their undying fealty to their savior. He gave them precisely what they wanted. If childish insults were as important to Democratic voters, they would elevate a similar figure to be the supreme leader of their party. They have not.
D voters don't even like Biden; they just thought he would be somewhat better than a naked dictatorship. Biden isn't giving his voters what they want. Zero effort towards public
Re: (Score:2)
"Team Blue" voters, in my opinion, only care that their candidate is strictly opposed to "Team Red."
The team will trot out someone like Bernie "Senator Sellout" Sanders to keep the base believing that they actually care about things like public health care, "climate solutions", and the like.
Once they get their base pacified, Biden (or the Party's approved alternate) will be put on the ballot
That the voters like the candidate or not is irrelevant to the Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion was that voters on both teams want childish insults. My assertion is that there is a difference in degree between the two.
That the Party pushes establishment candidates is not relevant to what the voters want.
Re: (Score:2)
When Team Red's candidate is someone like the Florida Orange Man, being strictly opposed to them is the correct response.
Completely different definitions of "abuses" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Completely different definitions of "abuses" (Score:4, Informative)
You're an idiot. The "Twitter files" didn't prove anything -- they turned out to be nothing, and people are either too brainwashed (like you) or dishonest (maybe also like you?) to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and watch Fox News, boomer, and keep letting them do your thinking for you.
Oh, here's a question: Why do people like you never criticize the Trump administrations' requests to Twitter?
load (Score:2, Informative)
What a load of horse poo. Biden is against anything that doesn't support what he wants. Every Democrat voted against a committee to scrutinize exactly what he claims to be complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to this vote?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second (Score:3)
You're literally just spouting a random collection of unpleasant words to create a vague feeling of distrust against Joe Biden. In politics we call that a Benghazi. There's no content to your post you're just trying to tug on people's emotions.
As for Joe Bid
I disagree with point 2. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't take the speaker to court, you shouldn't be able to scare the platform into censoring them.
Re: (Score:3)
DEAD WRONG approach - The harm is the platforms. I can write whatever open letter etc I want but nobody cares because I am not anyone of important and nobody will see it. When the Times includes in their editorial section, they lend it credibility and give it visibility - If its libel they are the ones doing the harm. The same is absolutely true of Facebook/Twitter/etc - when their algorithm promotes content they give it the reach - they are the ones doing the harm if its libel/disinformation/whatever.
They
Re: (Score:2)
If it is printed in the Times, it has been fact-checked and vetted, and the Times stands behind it, at least with regard to its factual accuracy.
That's why the Times can be held liable for printing it, as if it were the author.
Posting something on social media is more like selling the Times at a newsstand; the newsstand doesn't check anything, and there's not even a requirement that the person manning the kiosk can read.
That's why newsstands are not liable for defamatory content in the periodicals that they
Re:I disagree with point 2. (Score:4, Interesting)
So you want to repeal the first amendment (Score:2)
This is one of those cases where I'm extremely conservative. Not
It's a shakedown (Score:5, Interesting)
If section 230 goes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Big" nothing. (Score:2)
"Big" word-goes-here is just a method by which politicians and media mouths pretend there's a problem to be solved.
Never mind that it MUST BE SOLVED by political action.
Never mind that that action must be taken by either the useless EU parliaments or the useless US congress.
No, "BIG TECH" is not the problem. STUPID POLITICIANS WHO DON'T KNOW CRAP are the problem.
What did Facebook do to hurt the rights of millions today? Nothing.
The CJEU - lots.
What did Twitter do to hurt the rights of millions today? Not
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you think people should state their opinions on video but not in writing. What a fascinating, seemingly-arbitrary preference. Did you have some traumatic event where someone hit you on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper?