SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump's return means more anxiety for White House reporters:
President Donald Trump's return to the White House to recover from the coronavirus seems certain to raise the already heightened anxiety level of the journalists assigned to follow him.
Three reporters have tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days while covering a White House described as lax, at best, in following basic safety advice like wearing masks. Discomfort only increased Monday with news that press secretary Kayleigh McEnany had tested positive.
Journalists are left to wonder if a still-contagious president will gather them for a public appearance and how their safety will be ensured.
After McEnany's announcement Monday, Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts spent part of his afternoon waiting outside an urgent care center for his own test. He had attended McEnany's briefing last Thursday. She didn't wear a mask, and neither did one of her assistants who later tested positive, and Roberts sat near both of them. He tested negative.
He called it an inconvenience, but stronger emotions were spreading. American Urban Radio Networks correspondent April Ryan said she found it infuriating that Trump and his team had risked the health of her colleagues. CNN's Kaitlan Collins said it was "irresponsible, at best."
"It's frustrating," said Jonathan Karl, ABC News White House correspondent. "Frankly, it makes you angry."
Separately, Trump Halts Coronavirus Relief Talks Until After The Election:
President Trump says he has ordered his representatives to stop talks with Democrats on a new round of COVID-19 aid until after the election.
In a series of tweets, Trump said he has rejected Democrats' latest proposal for a more than $2 trillion relief bill because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "is not negotiating in good faith." Lawmakers had hoped to approve some relief measures before the election amid a recent decline in job growth and fears the economy could worsen without speedy intervention from Congress. Instead the president said any vote on legislation would wait until after the election.
[...] Pelosi, D-Calif., accused Trump of abandoning first responders, teachers, children and people who have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus.
"President Trump showed his true colors: putting himself first at the expense of the country, with the full complicity of the GOP Members of Congress," Pelosi said in a statement. "Walking away from coronavirus talks demonstrates that President Trump is unwilling to crush the virus, as is required by the Heroes Act."
Pelosi was in the midst of active talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in hopes of reaching a compromise on COVID-19 relief before the November election. The two continued to disagree on key portions, such as funding for state and local governments, but were set to continue talks. Pelosi also signaled to the airline industry that there were efforts to provide some help in the next bill.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:55PM (2 children)
S.230 is about a platform having defense from liability if it polices its content.
Due to the scale of the internet, especially since the 1990s, a platform should have the liability shield whether it can effectively police its content or not. Or chooses to do so or not.
In what case is it reasonable to hold a platform liable for the words of someone else?
I used SN as an example. But consider removing the liability shield from ALL internet sites. What do you think will happen?
Would a Dyson sphere [soylentnews.org] actually work?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:37PM
The biggest stifling of speech across all platforms. US tech companies losing market share as businesses switch to less dangerous jurisdictions. Snowflake conservatives being censored for their hate speech lime never before!
Y'know, fuckit, bring on the terrible idea!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:43PM
I agree completely.
In the absence of 230, any site that polices its content *at all* is considered a publisher, and they become become liable for *everything* posted there - just like newspapers are liable for anything they publish, including in the classified ads, letters to the editor, etc.
Without 230 sites either need to allow everyone to publish whatever unfiltered filth they want (which I suspect would drive most users away, killing the business) or hire enough censors to read through every post before it's published to filter out the anything remotely legally questionable or risk facing liability (which I suspect would be far too expensive to be worth it)
So basically, internet forums of all kinds die - except for the most extremist ones where members embrace the torrent of unavoidable filth.
There's probably room to improve 230, nothing is perfect, and it was written before "social media" was anything like what it has become. But in the current political climate I'm pretty sure any attempt to change it would result in something far worse. I'd actually be impressed if all we got was government-regulated censorship.