ALL TRUMP!!! ALL THE TIME!!!

Sure, I wasn't going to deep dive into Section 230 for the purposes of that question, though.

Getting rid of it would be an absolute nightmare. Changing it... would depend on what those changes look like. But if there isn't some level of protection for online spaces, everything with a comment section will either go incredibly-gated-community or just not have comments at all. The legal liability aspects of its removal would be more destructive to discourse than anything short of pulling the plug on the internet entirely.

It would take an act of Congress to eliminate section 230, so the whole topic is moot, its not gonna happen. It would also take an act of Congress to make any changes to the text. So again, dead topic.

The case is born from hurt feelings, not actual law breaking. The FCC could theoretically try to change how platforms are classified, but considering the chairman has poured cold water on the idea, and its completely unclear if the FCC actually has any authority to take that action, and any action would immediately end up in court, nothing is going to change anytime soon, if ever.

Trump's EO was essentially a dare to social media sites to take action against him, and from the looks of it, they aren't intimidated. Nor should they be.

Social media is just a hive for group-think.

There is way too much money and way too much power involved here. This fight will never be over, so to assume that any particular outcome won't happen at some point is absurd, even if it doesn't last.

I don't see the Dems ever budging on this "issue," much less acknowledging that it's an actual issue. I don't even see the the GOP presenting a united front here. And the fact that it's a law, which seemingly makes Congressional action required to achieve any outcome, I'm very skeptical.

Those protections were granted under the understanding that online platforms would be neutral and work towards the betterment of the whole community. Instead they've become advertising platforms who cater to those paying the bills.

I think those protections are needed but that the restrictions on being labeled a "platform" need to be tightened up. Anything that is funded primarily through advertising revenue needs to immediately be deemed a publisher because that's exactly what they are. Fundamentally there is no difference between Twitter, Facebook or Vogue, they all sell advertising space and user data for profit. In contrast FFXIAH on the other hand isn't funded through advertising money, instead through donations and the hard work of the custodial staff it provides an open community to a specific market segment. Essentially FFXIAH is a 501c(3) organization.

So I feel that should be the determiner right there. If a business generates it's primary operating revenue through advertisement sales, then it's a platform no question. We don't give FoxNews a special legal exemption just because they have a comments section. If it's operating revenue is generated through subscription fees or donations then it might be a platform.

It looks like the GOP isn't going to have the super spreader part of their convention in Jacksonville either.

Jacksonville to order mask-wearing ahead of GOP convention

A turning point came after decisions by the Coast Guard and Navy, which has two facilities in Jacksonville, to require indoor mask-wearing.
Politico.

Can you imagine Trump addressing a convention hall full of people wearing masks?

One of the major American parties is very, very good at presenting a united front. The other? NOT SO MUCH.

You may have it backwards as to which is which, though.

A lot of issues have fractured the GOP in the last few years, specifically immigration and health care, and to a lesser extent infrastructure and education, but education is just not the social issue Trump wants it to be. The GOP couldn't move any of those issues through their chambers when they had opportunities to.

Reddit bans pro-Trump forum The_Donald and other communities that promote hate
CNN

The Donald was inactive for like 4+ months ~ so you can say its a retroactive ban

I love how all these articles always have this super vague, "promote hate" tagline.

The definition of hate and hate speech has become extremely fluid these days, such as harassment. If I state statistical facts on violent crime rates, leftist forum trolls call that hate speech, depending on the context.

If a minority or race apologist posts the most insidious, hate-filled rant about cisgender white males, it's totally acceptable to those same people who screamed hate speech about the statistics.

The logic behind some of it makes absolutely no sense.

Hate speech... Hmmmmmm....

Shut up, Eiryl. You've espoused way more Nazi ideology than a frickin' animal and two word slogan could ever convey. Eagles are a national symbol in many countries, and we were using it long before the Nazis were. Stop projecting.

Not even close, to either

"Nuh uh."

Nice rebuttal.

You projecting that I'm projecting is literally "no, u" so yeah.

You pretend to not understand the obvious difference between "want and need". Nazi's want to do "this. We "need" to do "volcano".

You need to just stop. Hitler absolutely thought that there was a "need" for a purge. Germany was in very bad shape when he took power, and the "final solution" was intended to be just that - a "solution" to their problems. The biggest difference is that you're encouraging an extreme ideology from a place of relative prosperity and comfort.

Theirs was a manufactured problem.

Ours is an actual problem. There are people actively working against our own country. We kill those people all the time. We just need to be faster at it. (wiping out genetic diseases and whatnot is just a bonus)

You're full of crap, and besides that, Rooks told you to knock it off with the eugenics talk. Why don't you look in the mirror to see who's "working against our country".

You *** brought it up. I posted a picture.

Yeah, this time I brought it up because an actual believer in eugenics decided to Godwin a freaking bird as if that's somehow worse, but don't act like you haven't been bringing it up unprovoked.

It's a picture. Literally.

It's a bird, literally. (See how easy that is?)

It's just a picture, literally.

Exactly my point. So don't say I'm a nazi for posting a picture. douchebag.

I didn't say you were a Nazi, just that you share a huge part of what made their ideology infamous. It's the main reason people remember Hitler more than Kaiser Wilhelm II.

The fact that you're trying to make a big deal out of an eagle symbol is just cognitive dissonance.