Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 05 2021, @02:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the only-have-to-win-once dept.

McConnell introduces bill tying $2K stimulus checks to Section 230 repeal:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has thrown a wrench into Congressional approval of an increase in government stimulus relief checks from $600 to $2,000. The House voted overwhelmingly on Monday to increase the payments, as President Trump had advocated for. Instead of voting on the House bill, however, McConnell blocked it and instead introduced a new bill tying higher stimulus payments to Section 230's full repeal, according to Verge, which obtained a copy of the bill's text.

It's a tangled web, but the move is tied to Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes $740 billion in defense spending for the upcoming government fiscal year. "No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have," Trump said in a statement about the veto, claiming falsely that the military "was totally depleted" when he took office in 2017. "Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step."

Section 230 has nothing to do with military intelligence; it's a 1996 law designed to protect Internet platforms. At its highest level, the short snippet of law basically does two things. First, it grants Internet service providers, including online platforms, broad immunity from being held legally liable for content third-party users share. Second, it grants those same services legal immunity from the decisions they make around content moderation—no matter how much or how little they choose to do.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 05 2021, @09:04PM (#1095204)

    Oh, I get it, it's okay for you to post whatever you want, but I have to somehow anticipate what you want, then conform to your rules? Fuck you.

    This *is* the same AC you replied with the above to.

    No. You don't have to anticipate anything. Post whatever you want. Or don't. That has nothing to do with me.

    You don't *have* to conform to anything. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

    Nor do I care. Which was *my* point. I don't know you. I'm not interested in you or your life. I don't care to get to know you either.

    Which is what I said. And it's a really long way to go from "I don't know or care who you are or what you say or think" to "I insist that you conform to my rules." In fact, they don't intersect *at all*.

    You seem to have a big problem with reading comprehension. Not that I care. Nor do I request, insist or otherwise make *any* demand upon you.

    Although I will observe that you appear to be both dumb *and* nasty. A wonderful combination! You go, girlfriend!