Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Dontrike]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...hield-00055771

Its clear that Biden's administration has been taken over by leftist weirdos on social issues. Killing 230 is effectively killing social media full stop

Even if that was true I don't know many that would be all that upset if twitter was nuked from the internet.

[s_bushido]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...hield-00055771

Its clear that Biden's administration has been taken over by leftist weirdos on social issues.

I have no idea what the article you linked has to do with that (other than reaching for an excuse for your weekly drive-by shitpost). It's right-wing grifters who are constantly banging on about their side of the aisle being the only bulwark against the Tyranny of Big Tech.

[CastletonSnob]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[Shadowferal]

Lets put this gere; Al Franken Pounces On CNN’s Alice Stewart Over What ‘Destroyed’ Legitimacy of SCOTUS: ‘I’m Surprised You’re Claiming This!’

[Endus]

Lets put this gere; Al Franken Pounces On CNN’s Alice Stewart Over What ‘Destroyed’ Legitimacy of SCOTUS: ‘I’m Surprised You’re Claiming This!’

I'll just say it right out; Franken's too good and ethical and decent and intelligent a human being to put himself anywhere near Congress ever again. At least, until they clean up their act. And by "they", I mostly mean the wildly dishonest and fascy Republicans.

[Belize]

They are already accountable for hosting illegal stuff. Report it to law enforcement and when they send an order to take it down they take it down. Attempts to touch established policy will only make companies to err on the side of caution and censor everything that might be slightly controversial

Great, maybe if the platforms are more accountable, they'll start policing the content posted on it better.

If that makes you upset, or feel targeted, maybe reconsider what you post on social media

[unfilteredJW]

They are already accountable for hosting illegal stuff. Report it to law enforcement and when they send an order to take it down they take it down. Attempts to touch established policy will only make companies to err on the side of caution and censor everything that might be slightly controversial

Known bigot worried they might face issues being bigoted. I’m shocked.

[NED funded]

Known bigot worried they might face issues being bigoted. I’m shocked.

Just say you dont care about free speech rather than hide behind faux progressivism

[Gelannerai]

Just say you dont care about free speech rather than hide behind faux progressivism

You are not, nor have ever been, entitled to say whatever you want whenever you want on a private platform like Twitter or Facebook. Your right to free speech is not curtailed by this in any way. If you think it is, you are misinformed.

[NED funded]

You are not, nor have ever been, entitled to say whatever you want whenever you want on a private platform like Twitter or Facebook. Your right to free speech is not curtailed by this in any way. If you think it is, you are misinformed.

???

The specific thing we are talking abt is Biden wanting to make changes to legislation that would censor stuff on social media. Its literally the government trying tp stiffle speech, not companies taking action on their own

[Endus]

???

The specific thing we are talking abt is Biden wanting to make changes to legislation that would censor stuff on social media. Its literally the government trying tp stiffle speech, not companies taking action on their own

Removing Section 230 still isn't a free speech issue. Private platforms not taking risks by allowing random postings to be "published" through their services without active review is not a restriction on anyone's freedom of speech. You still don't know (or more likely, intentionally lying about) what "freedom of speech" even is.

Plus, there's loads of room within the concept of free speech for establishing certain types of speech as unprotected. See threats of violence, see incitement to riot, see child pornography, etc. Even if Biden were to establish proper hate speech laws like most other developed nations, that still wouldn't be an attack on free speech as a principle.

[Edge-]

The specific thing we are talking abt is Biden wanting to make changes to legislation that would censor stuff on social media.

No, it wouldn't. If social media companies chose to overreact and censor their own users that's their own decision. You can't exactly "censor" already illegal content like child porn or drug selling or some shit.

Its literally the government trying tp stiffle speech, not companies taking action on their own

"The government is literally trying to kill these companies labor force by making child-labor, especially around heavy machinery, illegal!"

Yes, the government often does have a vested interest in regulation of companies in pursuit of the greater good and limiting harm done to others.

[jonnysensible]

???

The specific thing we are talking abt is Biden wanting to make changes to legislation that would censor stuff on social media. Its literally the government trying tp stiffle speech, not companies taking action on their own

you believe in the stifling of speech

[Milchshake]

TLDR: Glenn Greenwald is super mad that KiwiFarms was deplatformed.
GG fans are just posting their loses here by projecting Censorship onto Biden. "bEcAuSE demS are The rEaL fasciSTS!"

[NED funded]

No, it wouldn't. If social media companies chose to overreact and censor their own users that's their own decision. You can't exactly "censor" already illegal content like child porn or drug selling or some shit

Unintended consequences are a thing. If companies are held liable for all the content they post then it stands to reason that no one would risk legal action and censor proactively. You have to be literally blind to not see the natural course of actions. We know this to be true about every policy decision ever made and craft policy thinking of that.

Its why as a reaction to the British government putting bounties on snakes hunted, Indian farmers decided to breed snakes in order to claim those bounties. And when the government stopped the program, Indian farmers decided that they would simply release the snakes triggering an even worse plague than what the original plan was meant to fight

[Edge-]

Unintended consequences are a thing.

If we worried about every unintended consequence we'd be paralyzed into inaction by fear.

If companies are held liable for all the content they post

Actually, they are. If they post it. If their users post it they have pretty broad, blanket protections. Which is what this is about, limiting those broad protections so that they still protect companies operating in good faith while penalizing companies that make little to no effort to police illegal content hosted in their site.

then it stands to reason that no one would risk legal action and censor proactively.

Yes, like algorithms and systems that are designed to identify illegal content like CP and prevent it from being uploaded. Most people would argue that's a pretty good thing, no?

Or is this a, "They'll have to manually review every one of our posts before it's posted!" which is never going to happen given the practical and financial realities of social media.

Really, personally, while I don't use social media really I can't think of a time in which I've ever even thought that anything I posted might trigger content filters. But I'm not posting a bunch of sketchy as fuck shit so /shrugs

You have to be literally blind to not see the natural course of actions.

Not at all. Companies have a vested financial interest in keeping users on their platforms as long as possible. Blanket-censorship or delaying of posting is a great way to drive users away.

We know this to be true about every policy decision ever made and craft policy thinking of that.

We do? According to whom?

Its why as a reaction to the British government putting bounties on snakes hunted, Indian farmers decided to breed snakes in order to claim those bounties. And when the government stopped the program, Indian farmers decided that they would simply release the snakes triggering an even worse plague than what the original plan was meant to fight

Nice analogy and all, but I don't see what it has to do with the topic at-hand?

[Endus]

Unintended consequences are a thing. If companies are held liable for all the content they post then it stands to reason that no one would risk legal action and censor proactively. You have to be literally blind to not see the natural course of actions. We know this to be true about every policy decision ever made and craft policy thinking of that.

Hot tip: Not being granted access to a private platform is not "censorship". Stop misusing terminology.

You continue to not understand the most basic principles behind freedom of speech.

[Edge-]

https://people.com/politics/22-gop-g...giveness-plan/

Welp, Abbott of TX and DeSantis of FL are apparently pretty opposed to federal student loan forgiveness.

"As governors, we support making higher education more affordable and accessible for students in our states, but we fundamentally oppose your plan to force American taxpayers to pay off the student loan debt of an elite few," the letter wrote, adding that the cost of the plan will be "a price the people of our states cannot afford."

So...that's not really supporting making higher education more affordable?

Also, why didn't they complain about the corporate bailouts and all those other times US taxpayers, including people in their state, footed the bill for? I don't recall them loudly opposing those bailouts as bad for residents of their states. Especially for companies that don't have operations in those states, specifically.

[Dontrike]

https://people.com/politics/22-gop-g...giveness-plan/

Welp, Abbott of TX and DeSantis of FL are apparently pretty opposed to federal student loan forgiveness.



So...that's not really supporting making higher education more affordable?

Also, why didn't they complain about the corporate bailouts and all those other times US taxpayers, including people in their state, footed the bill for? I don't recall them loudly opposing those bailouts as bad for residents of their states. Especially for companies that don't have operations in those states, specifically.

It's strange how they seem to oppose this under the guise of not wanting to help "the elite few" when they don't seem to have a problem giving tax breaks to those elite few and letting taxpayers foot the bill. Almost like there's some form of hypocrisy.

[Milchshake]

Happening Now: President Biden delivers remarks on the railway labor agreement.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/statu...32324134633473
Biden announces a deal between railroad companies and unions to avoid a national strike: “These rail workers will get better pay, improved working conditions, and peace of mind around their health care costs: all hard-earned.”

Conservatives mad for some reason.



The “sweetheart deal” here is “rail workers can take sick leave without being punished for it.”

It'll be amazing if the administration can also facilitate a deal for the Teamsters at UPS.