DOJ unveils Trump administration's legislation to reform tech's legal liability shield:
The Department of Justice proposed legislation Wednesday to reform a key legal liability shield for the tech industry known as Section 230.
The draft legislation focuses on two areas of reform. First, it aims to narrow the criteria online platforms must meet to earn the liability protections granted by Section 230. Second, it would carve out the statute's immunity for certain cases, like offenses involving child sexual abuse.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from liability for their users' posts, but it also allows them to moderate and remove harmful content without being penalized.
The statute's protections helped tech platforms grow from the early days of the internet but have come under scrutiny in recent years as lawmakers and regulators more broadly question the tech industry's power.
Several lawmakers have proposed reforms to Section 230 in recent months, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May targeting the law, claiming to crack down on alleged "censorship" by tech platforms. Trump introduced the order shortly after Twitter slapped fact-check labels on his tweets for the first time.
Representatives from Twitter, Google and Facebook were not immediately available to comment about the DOJ's proposal, which would need to be passed by Congress.
[...] The DOJ's proposal specifically states that nothing in the statute should prevent enforcement under other types of laws, including antitrust laws. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have all faced antitrust scrutiny from lawmakers and enforcers. Outlets including The New York Times have reported that the DOJ is preparing an antitrust case against Google that could come as soon as this month.
"Online censorship goes far beyond the issue of free speech, it's also one of protecting consumers and ensuring they are informed of their rights and resources to fight back under the law," White House spokesperson Judd Deere said in a statement Tuesday. "State attorneys general are on the front lines of this issue and President Trump wants to hear their perspectives."
Related Stories
US Senate to issue subpoenas for Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai:
The US Senate's Commerce committee on Thursday voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to issue subpoenas to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai, as Congress considers changes to liability protections granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The three tech CEOs would appear before the committee as witnesses, but the date of the hearing hasn't been determined.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, from Washington and the leading Democrat on the committee, initially opposed the subpoena, which had been introduced by Chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. But Cantwell changed her position after Republicans included language in the subpoena regarding privacy and "media domination."
"There is a lot we want to talk to tech platforms about, like privacy and anti-competitive media practices," she said in a statement. "I thank the Chairman for broadening the subpoena to cover these issues."
She went on to say that "Section 230 deserves a serious thoughtful discussion. But the hearing should not be used to try to have a chilling effect on social media platforms who are taking down false COVID information or hate speech."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @06:26AM (7 children)
The ol' switcheroo. "We must be given over reaching power to destroy tech companies, and we're doing it for your freedom, but more importantly for your rights as a consumer."
Jeebus Walnut Bread Batman! Think of the children! I'm getting tinges of Patriot Act vibes. Cause giving the government the power to censor online platforms is totally not going to result in government censorship.
Does no one care about all those poor CaNcEL cUlTuRe aRglBlaRg victims??!@!??!?!@?!@???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:13AM
aRglBlaRg claims to not post anon
(Score: 5, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @02:32PM (5 children)
Conservatives: We love when the federal government uses it power to silence our critics because FREE SPEECH!
The slide into Orwellian double-think continues.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @02:50PM (4 children)
Fascism is that form of government which in part, prioritizes giant corps. We know where Democrats stand on that.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @04:50PM (2 children)
Democrats are not proposing this legislation.
However, they're gonna be in charge of the government again at some point. Are these powers something you want to give them?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:34AM (1 child)
Of course -- companies so large they are or are adjacent to monopolies need regulation and should push no agenda. Communications services such FB and Twitter are merely the new way of communication. We wouldn't accept such censorship or favoritism in the mail or telephone, we should not accept -- in either direction -- from oiligarchs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @02:52AM
So I'm guessing by the words you say that you've never heard the wisdom "if you're not paying for the service you ARE the product!"
I'm open to some kind of regulation, and definitely open to anti-trust regulation, but currently the monopoly is purely the choice of the consumer. Perhaps regulation should mandate free cross platform APIs so someone can share their FB post with another service. Y'know, technologically saavy regulation and not just a big ban hammer. Make it easy for consumers to move their digital profile around.
Got anything useful to add? Or just outrage about some people being kicked off a service for violating the TOS?
Tell me, have you read the comparisons to this site? Do you realize the liability that legislation would open SN up to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @11:48PM
We also know where the Republicans stand on that too. Surprise! It turns out neither party works for you, us, or the people.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 25 2020, @06:27AM
The SadoMa... Social Media giants have low incentive to see a Republican govt being elected.
What, you thing that the Faux Newts parasitical symbionts will be enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @07:11AM (86 children)
Social media needs to be reined in. They are exercising far more power than they should be allowed.
Unfortunately, it's a partisan issue. The progressives like things just fine, because social media sides with them. But, I have little faith in Trump to fix things. Digital rights and digital freedom requires some finesse to work out. Trump has as much finesse as a sledge hammer.
If anything comes of this, it's probably going to be as bad, or worse, than what we already have.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:24AM (28 children)
Hi hi widdle fascist. Your widdle pwincipullls of fweedom and constit2shunnal whites are meeellllting wid yo widdle pursecute-on compwex. Po babee boo. Neberr go fwull notsee, kud wun into twouuublle.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Flyingmoose on Friday September 25 2020, @10:32AM (27 children)
I have been a life-long democrat, but it's exactly condescending name-calling like this which has made me swear to never vote for the party again. "Fucking white male", "Racist", "Nazi", "Literally Hitler". You don't seem to realize that calling people names won't win you any support.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @02:18PM
So you don't vote? Because, if you don't like that, you won't like the individual that is currently occupying the white house at all.
Or maybe you do vote, maybe you vote for the greens or the libertarians or Mickey Mouse? If that's the case then clearly you find that to be more important than the preservation of the democracy in which you at least *can* vote for Mickey Mouse.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @02:45PM (5 children)
It seems to have worked for Trump. But, much like your position on the federal government censoring websites you don't give a crap about it so long as it's pointed at your enemies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @05:26PM (4 children)
Right back at you. GFT (google facebook twitter) isn't censoring anything you agree with - today. GFT is only censoring shit you disagree with - today. You are perfectly happy to see GFT using their monopolistic positions to silence the people you oppose - today.
Like most people, you can't see past your own nose, you can't imagine how things might change in a year, ten years, twenty years. GFT is only accumulating power, they're not going to give any power up. In fifteen years, when your views, GFT views, and important issues have all changed, you're going to be the victim. At which time, you can only blame yourself for supporting GFT today.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @05:58PM (3 children)
I don't like GFT's policies so I don't use GFT. Y'know, competition, capitalism, thing you're supposed to like.
Anyone can set up a forum, we're on one of them now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @06:15PM (2 children)
Aaaaand, you completely ignore the "monopoly" aspect. Which police departments maintain a presence on Soylent? Which churches, community services, town/city governments? How many local businesses are found on Soylent?
For 25 years or more, we've been inundated with the importance of digital communications, and the "information age". Facefook capitalized on all of that, and attracted just about everyone and everything that is vital in life. Everything from beauty shops, to auto shops, to schools is found on Facefook. They have the monopoly, and you can't pretend any differently.
Booting someone off of Facefook is, in effect, denying that person access to vital services. Especially in today's COVID world, where you simply cannot walk into a lot of shops. I saw a doctor on Tuesday, whose office is located next door to a beauty shop. Big huge sign in the door said "NO WALKINS!!" in big 3 inch letters. Two inch letters informed that you could make an appointment by calling 555-4242 or visit Facefook, and 1 inch letters stipulate that you cannot come in if you have a fever, etc etc.
Monopoly. It may not be the ONLY service of it's class available, but no other service can possibly compete. Why don't you study that term for a bit? Try to understand what a monopoly is, then we might continue this conversation.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @06:37PM (1 child)
Including a phone number in your argument about how necessary Facebook is to contact businesses is a bold strategy, I'll give ya that!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @06:42PM
God, you even put it BEFORE Facebook!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @02:54PM (14 children)
Same here. The deepest hatred is not reserved for one's opponents, but for one's traitors. I used to be content to vote third party as a protest, but I'm voting violently this year and the message is "fuck you Democrats".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:57PM (3 children)
So you must be mad at the traitors busy subverting democacy and employing fascist tactics against peaceful citizens for things like phito ops.
There is something seriously wtong with you when you can say shit like that and nit be talking about Truml & Co. Not to mention all that talk about snowflakes, facts, and feelings.
Please explain why it is OK for Republicans to spew hatred 24/7 but no one can criticize them?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:56AM (2 children)
Which Republican adjacent groups have burned down huge swathes of cities, destroyed everything people worked for, and feel entitled in doing it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @03:03AM (1 child)
Yeeesh, dementia setting in? Go ahead, dig up some numbers and tell us how much property damage was caused which makes you OK with subverting the very concept of democracy in the United States of America? How much is the 1st amendment worth to you?
Please, give us a cash value. Maybe you could discount the damages from the migrant caravan our amazing president Trump protected us from by mobilizing the national guard!
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday September 28 2020, @05:23AM
Burning down someone's business when they had exactly nothing to do with what bothers you is not 1A territory and anyone who thinks so is not just a moron, they're an asshole.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @04:53PM (4 children)
Seems to me that sending a violent message of "fuck you" to people you're calling traitors is a bit hateful itself...
And aren't you opposed to calling people names too?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @05:14PM (3 children)
What part of "the deepest hate is felt towards one's traitors" is confusing?
As for names -- Democrats have been running on the exhaust fumes of nostalgia for who they were prior to Bill Clinton. After three decades -- those fumes are getting mighty thin, I look to recent ACTS to inform my opinion, empty rhetoric is not my thing.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @05:48PM (2 children)
You're announcement that you hate me is not very confusing at all.
I'm just wondering why you are so full of hate.
You'll notice that I have never called you any names but you just called me a traitor.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:40AM (1 child)
You personally, unless you are a person of power in the DNC do not get my hate. At worst you are a "vote blue no matter who" misguided voter. Those with power however have betrayed the base -- or at least what I used to perceive as the base (*) -- for so long, so relentlessly, and so thoroughly, that if I could vote for Satan I feel I'd be voting for the lesser evil.
(*) Anti-foreign wars of aggression, pro-working class, pro-environment (not corporate greenwashing money grabs), pro-individual freedoms and the right to live as one wishes, anti-mass surveillance, anti-censorship, and others I'm not thinking of right now, but basically, all the liberal pro-liberty stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @05:33PM
This. It is not that I have moved away from the Democrat party. Instead, it moved away from me.
That being said, the Two Parties are both in desperate states currently. Their bases of the last 60 years have shifted after the second rate presidencies of Baby Bush and Barack Obama. Mass Christian movements of the 80s have given way to religionized pseudoscience (I have *faith* in the guy in Brand A lab coat) and self-flagellation (I confess I am truly an evil white man) movements that the democrats have targeted. Not that their leadership really believes in that, but they overestimate their control over dangerous forces given free rein in US cities.
Republicans otoh have become the catch basin for the working class, anti-war, individual freedom etc. proponents that feel alienated from the dogmas of faith, anti-male sexism and anti-white racism the democrats now espouse. They unhappily share that space with the Christian freaks and old-style anti-black racists who remained. And that party doesn't even have strong leadership anymore, they'll take anyone who has a chance of getting votes.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 25 2020, @05:27PM (4 children)
Amazing. "That guy flipped me off! I'm going to start hanging out with the guy who's spent the last 20 years punching my face out the back of my head and just bought a pair of brass knucks! At least HE isn't RUDE!"
You're the third or fourth one on this site I've seen willingly throw yourself into the same death spiral that's turned Runaway into a gibbering wild-eyed foaming-at-the-gums looniebird. What the fuck is going on? Were you just always this broken and finally decided you're sick of putting up a facade of normality, or did you just decide to thrown a giant temper tantrum and condemn other humans to heaven knows what kind of horrors because you're mad?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:00PM (2 children)
I think it's a reaction to complexity.
Waaah shit is complicated. The solution is that it's a global hoax, whatever that stuff you're talking about. The big mystery is who is the evil mastermind - and we now know it's George Soros.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:00AM (1 child)
It's a reaction to the fact that Democrats are corporate, Wall St., Mic whores who pretend to care but when it gets down to brass tacks, don't give a fuck about the working class. They've had opportunity after opportunity to demonstrate they do care and have totally taken a pass. Exactly how many years of horrific record and policy is required before people say "OK -- I guess you aren't in it for me"?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:02AM
"Mic" should have been "MIC" (Military Industrial Complex -- but I'm sure you all know that).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @08:06PM
They just aren't used to being on the receiving end of abuse so their logic is beung overridden by their emotions. Pair that with all the FUD Fox peddles about the poor white man under siege by the evil godless heathens and their hordes of violent dark skinned criminals, and you have a perfect recipe for insanity.
Liberals have been rather restrained until Trump, preferring compromise and discussion for the most part. Once Republicans showed their true levels if hyocrisy and hate, well gloves are off dems fightin' words! Well, it actually started under Obama where we saw the naked racism and paranoid insanity really take off.
Anyway, long story short these white dudes are deep into FUD and dislime being called out since they are brainwashed and don't understand they are being correctly labeled. The hillarity about "snowflakes" and their current griping is pure schadenfreude for me. Tempered of cohrse by their willingness to murder me or defend those that do *sad face*
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:04PM (2 children)
Match the adjective to the person:
Sleepy
Slimeball
Phoney
Crooked
Low energy
Nervous
Little
Lyin'
Shifty
Horseface
And here are the people:
Marco
Joe
Jeb
Stormy
Nancy
Schiff
Ted
Tony
Hilary
Comey
Bonus point if you name the connection between them (clue: it involves a global conspiracy).
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @04:55PM (1 child)
It really is just the exact opposite of reality with them at this point.
It is no longer hyperbole to call it double-think. War is literally Peace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @05:05PM
Exactly. All those adjectives seem to perfectly describe the current occupant of the White House.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Friday September 25 2020, @03:57PM
It seemed to work pretty well for Trump in 2016.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @06:36PM
Isn't that exactly how Trump GOT his support?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 25 2020, @07:25AM (1 child)
If you think that the US govt is the one to rein it in, you are in for big troubles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:06PM
Easy - put Jared in charge. Problem solved.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:36AM (9 children)
Why should the post office be liable for letters sent by users? Why should the phone company be liable for phone calls made by users? Why should those that make knives be liable because people can misuse those knives?
Social media is a tool. It can be used for good or for bad. Trying to make social media companies liable for users that post things that the government arbitrarily disagrees with is nothing but a formula for disaster. Biden and Trump are both very sensitive to anyone that criticizes them no matter how legitimate those criticisms are. The real motive behind this is to stifle free speech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Flyingmoose on Friday September 25 2020, @10:35AM (5 children)
I've never heard of the phone company, the post office, or knife manufacturers denying people service because of their political views.
The social media companies are already stifling free speech. I think the goal is to get them to stop. Whether this accomplishes the goal is a different issue, but I think it's a noble goal. Censorship is bad, especially censorship of political speech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @01:58PM (1 child)
If Trump doesn't like the social media platforms he is using he can easily move to a different platform. Many of his followers will follow and that will draw traffic away from the platforms he is using causing them to lose revenue. No one is forcing Trump or Biden to use any particular platform. The key here is that there needs to be healthy competition and no government laws that limit competition (which is what we often have in the case of Cableco/Telco/ISPs and broadcasting).
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @04:59PM
There's NO COMPETITION* in social media!!!!!
* so long as you exclude the following sixty five social media sites [makeawebsitehub.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @02:47PM
So does The Mighty Buzzard with his regexes. Should SoylentNews be held responsible if I post copyrighted material here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:11PM
> Censorship is bad, especially censorship of political speech.
The problem is this falls into some gnarly territory if my political beliefs involve exterminating the . The religious right are fully exploring this line of reasoning with their religious freedoms. It's my religious freedom to mace protestors, deny abortions to other people, etc. You've seen the tactic.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @04:03PM
Umm, weren't conservatives flipping out about the baker beimg told to bake the cake?
Seriously, some whiny little bitches all of you are. No government regulation allowed, right until your feefees are hurt. There is possibly some legislation that could be created to help the situation but handing the government such arbitrary power is not a great idea.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @03:13PM (2 children)
Odd, that you should choose the post office to compare social media to. Hmm, shall we draw some parallels?
The post office doesn't get to read the mail they deliver. The post office can't decide who may use their service. The post office doesn't decide that a customer must be booted off of a delivery route. The post office must serve you, entirely anonymously, if you don't choose to identify yourself. The post office might require some form of identity before it will deliver certified or registered mail, otherwise, never. The post office doesn't even require you to register with a verifiable email address. And, finally, the post office will never censor the content of your mail. If you call your ex a bitch, it won't be bleeped out.
Also, it's illegal for the post office to decide that it doesn't want to deliver a message, so they just toss a bunch of votes for Trump in a ditch, or in a dumpster, or in an alley in California. We now have three separate incidents in which the post office HAS dumped mail, this year. (are there more that haven't come to light yet?) Someone's heads are going to roll for each of those cases.
I want to see Facefuck heads roll, and Google heads roll, and Twitter heads roll, for denial of service and censorship.
And, remember, YOU made the comparison between social media and the post office. YOU stuck your foot in your mouth with that comparison.
You also compared the media to the telcos? Well, the comparison isn't quite so direct, but the phone companies are prohibited from denying service based on religious grounds, sexual preference, political affiliation, age, race, ethnic background, nationality, gender, education, health conditions, or much of anything else. If you have money, you are ENTITLED TO a telephone.
Knife makers? How long would a knife maker (corporate or artisan) get away with denying service to any group of people?
Do you really think that social media should be singled out, and permitted some kind of power or authority to decide that they don't want certain classes of people using their services? Social media should decide who sits at the front of the bus, and who sits in back? Social media should decide what political views are acceptable, and which are not?
This is a can of worms that you really don't want to open, I suspect. But, there is more than sufficient evidence that the government should get involved.
Now, I repeat what I said above. Trump isn't qualified to deal with the issue. I don't suspect that any agency in government is qualified to deal with it - certainly not congress.
If I could be King of the United States for awhile, I think that I would empanel a bunch of federal judges who are qualified for consideration to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I would be careful to choose both liberal and conservative judges. They would be tasked with writing regulations concerning social media. Give them six months to hammer out the details, they draft a law for approval by congress. If congress refuses, congress must state what their problems are with that draft. The judges get the opportunity to fix those problems. Congress gets one more chance to find problems, then it is passed on to the senate for approval. Nothing would be off the table, of course, right up to and including nationalizing Facefook and Tweeters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @06:42PM (1 child)
This came pretty close to Gun Shops that are legally prohibited from selling to some groups of people.
Sometimes the analogy you attempt, breaks down.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @08:26PM
No, aside from actual prisoners, no one in the US is prohibited from possessing a knife. Parolees may be prohibited from owning a "weapon", but they can't be prohibited from owning a "knife". The fact that almost every knife can be used as a weapon still doesn't preclude a parolee from owning a steak knife, a bog standard pocket knife, or a utility knife.
People on probation or parole, and convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms, true. IMO, only "dangerous" people should be prohibited. Nutcases and violent felons. The fact that you embezzled a few thousand dollars from an employer shouldn't be grounds to prohibit you from owning a self defense weapon. But, that's just my opinion - the law is what it is.
So, no, my analogy doesn't break down.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday September 25 2020, @01:29PM
My problem with this is not his incompetence, but his motives. Both are real problems, of course, but if he were competent, his motives would make things worse.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday September 25 2020, @01:35PM (19 children)
No, they don't. Left-wingers are often censored on social media when they call for more radical measures, just like right-wingers are.
Also: If your contribution to the public discourse is calling people "faggot" and encouraging your followers to dox and threaten to kill them, you're getting censored because the alternative is letting you use the social media platform you're using to commit felonies. And how would it look if somebody carried out that threat, and told the court or the shrink evaluating how crazy they are that they did it because of $BRAND?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @02:38PM (1 child)
Police are being doxxed, in real life, for reals. The mayor of Portland was doxxed. I have zero sympathy for the mayor, as you might imagine, but he was doxxed. People's spouses, children, and extended families are being threatened, for reals.
But, as I said in my original post, Trump has zero competence to deal with the situation. And, we all know that Trump doesn't listen to the people who might have the competence and the finesse to handle it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @04:06PM
So maybe he is not a good candidate to vote for. Just sayin'
(Score: 2, Troll) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @03:03PM (16 children)
Most of the right no longer cares about orientation or race -- not so of the left: https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/1299223473009631232 [twitter.com]
The regressive left are the bigots these days just like Democrats aren't the party of peace and the working class anymore.
And about stalking and killing: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html [oregonlive.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:14PM (4 children)
Just letting you know, your head is on backwards. Hope you can get that looked at.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @03:54PM (3 children)
Backwards -- from what? That humanitarian Democratic policy of executing American citizens without trial based on a star chamber's unquestioned choice in the matter? Maybe it's because of the way Democrats bend over backwards to let banksters commit fraud that damages the entire nation and prosecute nobody. Is my head on backwards because I don't think we should go around the world blowing random people up for shits and giggles like Democrats love doing? Or maybe its because I don't think random people in our own country should be subjected to mobs of arsonists and idiots who only know how to destroy. Or maybe its because I'm not a racist like the woke DiAngelo cultists?
It's obvious what Democrats offer to censors, bigots, destroyers, the MIC, Wall St., and tech monopolies, but for a person who supports freedom, autonomy, peace, and respect for all peoples to live and let live, what exactly do Democrats have to offer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:32PM
It's still on backwards. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @08:52PM (1 child)
That's odd [policemag.com], given the affiliation of those executing American citizens [washingtonpost.com]
Facts are really inconvenient aren't they?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:47AM
Oh give it a rest. In only the most minority of instances, are the shootings unjustified. Let us also remember that the WAPO was an Iraq war cheerleader, ran 16 negative bernie stories in 16 hours, and has been pursuing a relentless agenda against Trump. Obama turned Bush's two wars into seven and got a Nobel prize -- Trump isn't even close to Obama's level, did a peace deal in the ME, and all the Democrats can do is complain that he isn't shooting enough people. This would explain I suppose why he hasn't been awarded the Peace Prize.
Anyway, any honest evaluation of news media would conclude it is 99% propaganda at this point.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 25 2020, @04:45PM (10 children)
The side of the political debate you're talking about advocates creation of a white ethnostate where anyone who isn't their idea of white is expelled, killed, or enslaved. And before you claim that those beliefs are from a fringe minority, someone who we know for a fact has repeatedly expressed these views is the president's senior policy advisor. You know, the same president whose company was convicted of racial discrimination in apartment rentals, who was described by his own ex-lawyer as a racist. No racists around there, no sirree.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday September 25 2020, @05:34PM (2 children)
Is there a tiny cadre of white supremacists in the world? Of course, but they are enormously and almost universally despised and powerless -- why do you think the epithet of "racist" holds so much power (though it's indiscriminate overuse is eroding that). In contrast, it is the woke left who have the power, the ability, and most importantly, the penchant to reinstitute segregation.
https://williamsrecord.com/2019/04/on-the-need-for-affinity-housing/ [williamsrecord.com]
https://www.browndailyherald.com/2019/03/14/new-asian-asian-american-program-house-join-campus/ [browndailyherald.com]
https://www.change.org/p/black-student-housing-at-nyu?recruiter=547793693&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=47da5cd0-2369-11e6-9735-7b37f23fe2df [change.org]
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14003 [campusreform.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 25 2020, @06:16PM (1 child)
So let me get this straight: The president and his top staff, with the support of the court system and much of the legislature, with access to the world's largest stockpile of both nuclear and conventional weapons, is powerless? Oh, and the cops are so powerless too, which is why they can kill people with near-impunity. And yeah, those people aren't the Klan and Neo-Nazis, they're just consistently treating the Klan and Neo-Nazis as allies even when they kill people or threaten to kill public officials, and consistently getting endorsements from white supremacists. And all but that last group are getting generous salaries paid for by the public treasury on top of what some of them are basically stealing from the public coffers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:49AM
They are not. You're just making shit up. Of course you will find any number of dishonest media to back you up on that lie, but repetition is not the same as fact. The regressive left has gone Goebbels level with propaganda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @05:41PM (6 children)
That's 90% or more bullshit, and you know it. Yes, there are some fuckwits who shave their heads, play their "heil hitler" games, and hate anyone who isn't lily-white. You call them "right", then proceed to insist that normal Americans who are not "left" be all lumped into that "radical right".
I have mentioned a few times that your tactics only tend to drive non-leftists further toward those skinhead Nazi motherfuckers. The US is becoming more like a prison, where you have to join one gang or the other to survive. If I'm not a lefty, then I have to join the righties. You won't even allow the Latino gang to coalesce into it's own gang, you insist that Latinos choose between left and right. Left or right, boy, which will it be? Black or white, boy, which will it be? All you gotta do to become a lefty, is to bow down and lick a black person's boots, then you'll be good with the left.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @08:10PM (5 children)
Because those are the people you gladly accept and refuse to condemn when they murder US citizens. Your current leader is ENCOURAGING their violence and spouting racist bullshit. Until you clean up your own house and completely disavow rightwing terrorism you will continue to be lumped in with them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @08:32PM (4 children)
Aaaannnnnd, RIGHT BACK AT YOU!!
The side you are supporting is more dangerous to the United States than the fuckwits currently occupying the White House. If the Dems keep the House, take the White House, and take control of the Senate, we're all fucked. Of course, if the Rs were to take all three, we'd still be fucked, just slightly less fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @03:10AM (3 children)
Not a problem :D Anyone caught destroying property should be arrested, anyone caught assaulting another person should be arrested. Protesters should not destroy property, and if they do the police are well within their rights to arrest and send them to trial.
Now your turn. Disavow and recant your defense of Heather Hyer's murderer and all the various instances of police murdering innocent people. Disavow the racists and neo-Nazis. Promise to support people like Colin Kapernick who respectfully protest police brutality. Promise to support police reforms.
Vow to support transgender and gay rights, vow to fight racist policies, vow to uphold the constitution like you did when you joined the Navy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 26 2020, @03:40AM (2 children)
Tamir Rice. I have posted many times, in many places, that the cops who killed Tamir Rice should have gone to prison for life.
Others that I have spoken for include John Crawford III*, Terrence Crutcher, Philando Casteel*, Jeremy McDole, Dontre Hamilton, Greg Gunn*, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray. Most recently, the no-knock warrant served on Breonna Taylor*.
You may note that I've NOT spoken up for every single black person who has made it into the news for being killed by cops. Some of them probably deserved what they got. Others probably didn't deserve being shot, but they put themselves into truly questionable circumstance. I won't speak up for people who are probably guilty, and honestly earned being shot. That doesn't stop me complaining when the cops shoot the same asshole 50 fucking times! Cops are out of control, often enough.
I am prejudiced. I believe that cops who abuse and murder INNOCENT people need to fry.
I believe that cops who abuse and murder guilty people should fry, but we can turn the heat down in the fryer for them.
I do NOT believe that every single black person shot and killed by a policeman is a murder. Criminals do stupid shit, like pulling guns on cops, or charging an armed cop, or trying to take a cop's gun from him. Criminals who earn Darwin awards deserve their rewards - I won't deny them the awards they sought.
* denotes victims who are so obviously innocent that obvious is just obvious
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @06:56AM (1 child)
Now for the rest of the items I listed =)
Also, anyone who is unarmed should not be shot. I will acknowledge there are rare instances where it could be required, but then we need bodycam footage. Cops should be able to verify their camera is working properly as the enter any incident, and any cop that has a malfunctioning camera and doesn't immediately report it must be suspended for 1-2 weeks without pay. Then we need to have actual consequences for officers who commit crimes.
But again, you need to address the other items.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:30PM
Nope. Go back and read. When you say that I've "defended" a Nazi, you lie. The rest of it, go back and read. I'm not here to hold your hand.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @02:36PM (18 children)
They have the ability to publish a website that says things Runaway disagrees with? TOO MUCH POWER!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @03:19PM (9 children)
You have it upside down and backwards. Runaway doesn't bitch that pinko commie fags can publish their views. Runaway is bitching that patriotic Americans are prohibited from expressing their views.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @05:04PM (8 children)
Runaway bitches that he can't force other people to publish his wackjob views on their website.
I seem to recall you had a different opinion about forcing people to publish things they didn't want to when it came to gay marriages and cakes. I guess we're supposed to apply a different standard to all pastry based media.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @05:18PM (7 children)
Difference being, there are a thousand pastry shops in whichever state you live in, and it's a short ride to find another vendor more to your liking. More, the cake shops in your state haven't formed an "Anti-Queer Cake Maker's Alliance" to ensure that you can't have a cake made.
Which part of "monopoly" have you failed to understand? You are aware that Google is being investigated for exploiting their monopolistic position in the market? Facefook is under investigation?
You're just pretending that GFT (google facebook twitter) are doing the "right thing" because you agree with them - today. Right now, you think they are only targeting "the right". What happens when GFT takes a position on some important issue that you don't like? They'll just shut you up, and push their agenda, of course. And, you'll be saying, "Oh shit, I didn't speak up for Runaway's right to speak, now there's no one to speak up for me!"
Maybe you're not a fascist, but you're standing there cheering the real fascists on. Remember that ten years from now.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @06:11PM (1 child)
Boy, if only there were thousands of websites that were available in my state! What a luxury that would be!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @06:18PM
And, you continue to keep your eyes wide shut.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @09:15PM (4 children)
That's a bunch of bullshit.
Most Americans don't like the influence that social media can exert over our discourse [pewresearch.org].
And it's disingenous complaints like these [cbsnews.com] that kill the credibility of those claiming "censorship."
What's more, the law of the land says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Last I checked, social media companies aren't Congress and aren't in any way agents of the government. As such, those prohibitions don't apply to them.
And be glad that's the case. If they did, I (or you, or anyone else) could go pretty much anywhere, your church, your house, Wal-Mart, the local hardware store, etc. and say whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and the owners/proprietors thereof would have to allow it.
I am well to the left of the Democratic Party (roughly somewhere around Holland) and I find social media's reach and influence to be a big problem.
And so what I did was vote with my feet. And once enough people do so (and they will, eventually), those entities will fall.
But claiming that "the left" cheers this on is just a steaming pile of shit.
I'd say "shame on you!" but you have no shame, do you?
Or perhaps more apropos, given your long history: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @09:38PM (2 children)
Actually, you seem to be arguing Trump's side of this thing. No one likes what Facefook is doing, so they need to be regulated.
As for private property, Facefook isn't exactly private property anymore. Facefook has pre-empted the Town Square. In effect, they've squatted on the Square, and laid claim to the Square. Or the Town Hall, if you like. They have a monopolistic position in the market, so they can silence anyone who speaks out on the Town Square, or in the Town Hall. No, it isn't Facefook's private property at all. Facefook needs to be turned into a commodity, somewhat like the "dumb pipes" that the ISP's operate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @11:02PM (1 child)
Don't try to put words in my mouth. Did I say *anything* about regulation? Actually I did. I quoted the First Amendment which says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
Does that sound like I support regulation of speech?
Really? Please tell me how exactly that works, and what legal basis you have for that claim.
Facebook owns (or leases) their infrastructure and has exclusive control of it. That sounds like private property to me.
I suppose that you could argue (as others [delawarevalleylawyer.com] have done) that Pruneyard v. Robins [wikipedia.org] applies here, but this has yet to be tested in court.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @11:10PM
I mentioned "commodity". Commodities are easily regulated.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @03:01PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let's be clear, when the government passes broadcasting monopolies to the highest bidder they are doing just this.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:27PM (7 children)
One fellow says "Bake a cake for my gay wedding or I will sue your ass out of existence!"
Another fellow says "Publish my conspiracy-laden and untrue rantings, unflagged and unedited, or I will sue your ass out of existence!"
Are these not flip sides of the same coin?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @06:21PM (6 children)
I find those flags that GFT (google facebook twitter) are putting on posts to be unpalatable - but I think they are probably acceptable. Of course, those flags should be administered fairly. When GFT flag one side in a political discussion, but never flag the other side, they are guilty of partisanship. Partisans shouldn't be administering such a system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @07:43PM (5 children)
No-one really cares what _you_ find "acceptable" or "partisan". What many do care about is a fellow who will manipulate the law to try to damage a business whose terms-of-service do not conform to his personal penchant.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @08:34PM (4 children)
You're referring to the fags who wanted a queer cake?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @09:04PM
Yeah, and that other guy who loves to rant fictional sh*t. (See Headline).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:05AM (2 children)
To be crystal clear, those are your words, not mine. If that's how your adolescent brain is able to understand my accurate description of "a fellow" who wants a cake for his "gay wedding", then that's on you.
Still the comparison of that fellow to the other stands. They are sides of the same coin - crumbs from the same box of crackers. They have the same demand - "Grant my whim, or I will burn you down."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:28AM (1 child)
Alright - I have to agree with you then. The key is "malicious intent". Of course, it's hard to establish intent when the stupid goes to court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26 2020, @07:00AM
Ayyyy
You lost bro =)
The baker won that lawsuit and didn't have to put a "gay" message on the cake, but was ruled that they have to sell non-gay message cakes to gay people. So FB/G/TW will have to allow you fuckwits on to their platform as long as you don't violate their TOS and it is up to them to enforce the terms.
Suck it homophobic asshole =) Suck it loooooong and suck it haaaaaaard. I've got some manly swimmers so you will be able to skip your midnight snack!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @08:02PM (1 child)
> Social media needs to be reined in
The problem is not social media per se. It is the increasing centralisation of the web.
If we had more and smaller sites, neither influence not regulation would be seen as concerns or issues.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 25 2020, @08:36PM
You make a very good point. Alas, any thing new and different on the internet that appears to be successful is snapped up as quickly as possible by the mega corporations.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:28AM (2 children)
It probably does need reigning in, but to change things to make them responsible for things others have chosen to say doesn't seem like a remotely just way to do it. For the same reason the phone company isn't considered an accomplice if criminals plan a bank heist over a conference call.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 26 2020, @12:54AM (1 child)
Naaahhh, no way could we make Facebook responsible for my asshole posts. If you or I make a post that is so rude, crude, and ignorant that it warrants prosecution, then you or I would be responsible. You could never get away with libel against your ex, making Facebook responsible. You can't threaten the president's life, and dodge responsibility. All we want here, is to prevent Facebook stifling the free exchange of ideas. If you communicate the idea that you're going to firebomb the local police office, the police are still going to come to talk to you, not Zuck.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 26 2020, @01:16AM
There's the other side of the coin, and hard to balance correctly for large social media. If I draw a swastika in the dust on the hood of your car, it's not wrong for you to decide you don't even want to appear to support that and wipe it off.
Of course, that's an easy one, you probably never declared your hood to be a public forum.
A harder one, it IS a public forum, and it IS for the discussion of politics, but some dumb-ass keeps posting the same ASCII swastika over and over, day after day. I conclude it isn't a serious attempt at communication and wipe those posts out.
Making it more complicated, a comparative religion forum. People invited to post ASCII art of religious symbols. Someone posts a swastika...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by nostyle on Friday September 25 2020, @07:14AM
"The Sound Of Silence"
Hello, darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a streetlamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
No one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
"Fools," said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls
And whispered in the sounds of silence."
- Paul Simon
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 25 2020, @01:16PM (2 children)
The embattled administration struggles to look presidential and effective in the final weeks before the election.
I'm surprised we haven't had a high profile bust of SPAM call operations yet.
Gotta sway the fence-sitters any way you can.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 25 2020, @03:18PM (1 child)
Look forward to October surprises all the way down.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 25 2020, @05:08PM
This election is already decided.
Nobody is going to believe in the seventeenth coronavirus miracle cure even if it has the word 'vaccine' next to it.
And no Trump supporters can be convinced by anything.
Last I looked at the polls it was like 3% undecided which is the lowest in decades.
It's over Johnny, we're all just waiting for the shitshow.