Agreed. It sounds like this is designed to intimidate enemies of the regime (real or perceived) and protect its most deplorable supporters without addressing the thornier (but still Constitutionally allowable) issue of how exceptions to 230 might be made for platforms that actively encourage harassment and promotion of violence by their user bases while hiding behind it.
6 Likes
If Congress doesnât legislate doing something, it shouldnât be possible to order it. Isnât that why Congress exists? 
Will we need to amend the Constitution to outlaw Presidential Executive Orders?
1 Like
And football (soccer in this case) is a business, with far too much money involved. Those shiny, shiny millions everywhere. And the brainwashed masses ready to fork it out.
You donât need to look hard to find that there is far less money when the team is not as successful. Trickle down economics works as well in football as it does in the rest of the world.
2 Likes
I remember some 23 years ago when the CDA was about to be enshrined into law we all thought it would be the end of the Internet as we know it.
Who would have thought (after all the terrible parts of it were struck down, of course) that itâd end up being one of the only things holding it together?
5 Likes
One solution would be for Comcast to buy Twitter, then Ajit wonât give a fuck what they post.
Oh, I know⌠our local team somehow managed to make it to L1 or whatever they call it these days, national level, after too many other teams played badly.
They never were good enough. But The Rules and the Mayor said that now that they were big boys, they needed a big stadium.
Guess whoâs got an empty 25000 seats, 102 million ⏠stadium? Because of course they lost again and went back to L2, the next year. And since some people were less than honest, the whole club was disbanded. Itâs slowly starting up again, but that was a gigantic waste of funds.
Why do you think the other side has a right to utter threats and harass and foment violence?
Also, since youâre new hereâŚ
17 Likes
9 Likes
OTOH - they also kicked in the heads of queer people and minorities for marching back in the day.
12 Likes
Typically, Libertarians are only moved to defend freeze peach when a fascistâs ârightsâ are under attack. When liberal or progessive voices are actually suppressed, itâs crickets.
9 Likes
Yes, but I did in the comment you were responding to with your straw man about my supposedly being scared of right-wing opinion [boldface added].
9 Likes
BuuutâŚthatâs the pnly thing these companies have in their TOSsâŚand the only thing actually generating takedownsâŚso that strawâs got legs
7 Likes
You posed it in response to my comment. I quoted it for reference just above. Your reply to me was akin to responding to a comment deploring wife-beating by asking âwhy are you so scared of the institution of marriage?â
Let me save you some time. Youâre far from the first Libertarian (or whatever type of âsupremely rational independent thinkerâ you style yourself as) to show up here trying to push this point of view with shoddy HS debate-club tactics. Every âbrilliant insightâ and âgotchaâ you think youâre about to present (like that hypothetical scenario, which conveniently omits whether the liberal commentators in question are promoting violence and uttering threats) has been seen and discredited numerous times before. If youâre going to continue on this topic, read through the Freeze Peach topic I posted above first and, if you can, offer something new.
9 Likes
Well look at you! Goodness gracious, weâve never seen the likes around here, benighted as we are by concerns about a regime that puts children in cages and distracted by our support of politicians trying to do what they can to offset the effects of climate change and economic inequality. Please, enlighten us with with your supreme logic. /s
[that last bit is a tag for sarcasm, something you should get used to. As for me, Iâve had my fun. Itâs clear you wonât add any value to this site so Iâm putting you on Ignore â 2 months, by which time I doubt Iâll have to renew it]
14 Likes
There is literally no such thing. And your professions on Free Speech here are an inherently political statement. If what youâre saying is that you like to wade into political debates without a purpose or belief system except questioning and condescending to other peopleâs genuinely-held beliefsâŚwell, there is a name for thatâŚ
12 Likes
Thereâs a very big difference between âthe Right Wingâ, i.e. traditional conservatives/Republicans, and actual, no-joke Nazis.
You are the one explicitly conflating the entire Right Wing of the US political spectrum with Nazis. You made that comparison and said that censoring âthe Right Wingâ would mean censoring Nazis. You are calling the entire Right Wing Nazis. Not me, not @gracchus, not the rest of us.
If you are in favor of giving white supremacists and people who want to murder Jews, Black people, and LGBT people an equal voice, yeah, no. Freedom of speech stops with hate speech. And thatâs why they donât deserve a voice on social media.
14 Likes
This is such a bananas turn for even the hypocritical wing on the right to take. For a group devoted to hysterics about taxes and anti-trust being government overreach, controlling companies content and behavior is somehow a mission from on high.
11 Likes
Okay, so who has ever struck you as an inspirational leader?
8 Likes
