This is embarrassingly stupid. This is literally Senate Dems handing censorship power to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. WTF are they thinking?
Reposted from
Evan Greer
There’s an active fascist takeover going on. Let’s check in with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee to see how they’re resisting it.
Oh… oh I see. They’re trying to blow up Section 230 and open the floodgates for Trump to censor the Internet. Inspiring!
Oh… oh I see. They’re trying to blow up Section 230 and open the floodgates for Trump to censor the Internet. Inspiring!
Comments
See where there might be an issue yet?
I am wondering to what extent this is also that, as they’ve demonstrated in the past, most of our legislators have no goddamn idea how the internet works and especially what §230 does.
Who thinks Chuck Grassley is in touch with and has the tech knowledge of today's average 40 yr old?
Should the ancients really be determining our future?
It's staggeringly stupid, unpopular with their base, and will literally fuck every last one of them over
Would pay $1000 to slap whatever dumbass consultant is telling them that this is the strategy they need
That's what they're "thinking" -- zero understanding of the problem, on multiple levels.
KOSA was always meant to be passed alongside EARN IT and STOP CSAM, all three of which are horrible legislation that together erect a firewall of censorship around and within the USA.
This needs to stop, but Blumenthal is DESPERATE.
He and X would be fine without Section 230.
Bluesky, Mastodon, Wikipedia ... not so much.
You realize that every Right Winger will attempt to sue this site out of existence, no???
The Wikipedia case is an interesting one and in my view one of the few persuasive reasons to keep Section 230.
Unmoderated social media is a cancer.
That doesn't matter to the richest man in the world.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351323
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
Second, as a member of the board of BlueSky (a social media platform) when (if ever) do you intend to acknowledge your clear conflict of interest?
As for your question, you misunderstand how 230 intersects with the 1st Amendment. X will still win any of those cases, but w/o 230 it's just more expensive. Musk can afford that. Smaller players cannot.
Fair point that your affiliation with a company that would be adversely affected is disclosed in your profile.
Fwiw, I have no affiliation w/ any individual or entity that would be impacted one way or the other.
Also, it is not reasonable to just be materially incorrect on the facts and tossing that line out doesn't obviate you of the need to defend your assertions. You cannot simply agree to disagree about objective reality.
We need to vote for them in midterms or live like this for four years.
Making it hard to vote for Dems is how we got Trump.
They just shooting themselves in the head repeatedly like a game of Russian roulette but the gun barrel is fully loaded.
🤦♂️
It will force them all offline.