2020 Election Thread

[In2ition]

Oh wow. It's Mitch McConnell!



For those of you who can't tell the difference, this creature has a soul.

LOL!

[Mori Chu]

If Section 230 were repealed, I would shut this site down the next day. Because as a non-profit web site, I cannot moderate each post before it is made, so any posts made would be a liability to me. I could be sued for anything posted by anyone on the site. I cannot take such a risk, so I would shut the site off immediately.

I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. With no protection from liability, almost every web site that allows user-posted content would have to change substantially. They would either need to hand-moderate every post before it went live, or they would need to remove user-posted content, or they would need an army of lawyers. I think that would eliminate most sites from having user discussions except for maybe big ones like Reddit or maybe Twitter. But even those sites would change a lot.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher.

This is incorrect. The only time that a site like Twitter loses their Section 230 protection is if they themselves *author* the content. Like, if they write the post or article, then they are liable for its content. The idea is that if, say, the NY Times has a columnist who writes an article and somebody sues the Times for that article's content (perhaps it is libelous), then yes, the NYT is liable and isn't protected by Section 230 since they wrote the article themselves.

They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?

This is incorrect. All of the behaviors you listed, such as shadow banning, deleting, moderating content, etc., are completely legal under Section 230 and can be done as the site operators see fit. Even actively silencing views, deleting users because you don't like their opinion, their face, etc., is completely legal as long as it does not violate other anti-discimination laws. For example, you cannot say, "No blacks allowed here," on your web site.

What do you do to curb censorship with 230? Youtube can ban or withhold earnings on a channel that was getting paid monetarily for no reason. They don't have to give that money back either. What's the solution to that? You would think that these companies could be held accountable in some way.

I agree that there are potential problems with having a few large tech companies in charge of moderating and filtering what gets posted and seen online. A conservative solution to such a business problem would be to solve it in the open market, where other companies should enter the space and provide a better service that does not block or filter such content. Indeed, companies like Parler, Locals, QubeTV, and many others do seem to be doing this, though their user bases are now smaller than the big social companies.

A more liberal solution to these problems would be increased regulation of tech companies, which I think would be a good thing overall. Removing Section 230 does not solve or even improve the problems being described here; it just removes a ton of additional content and effectively breaks the internet. Liberals might try to use the systems of government to come up with better standards for acceptable and unacceptable content, and then try to regulate tech companies in terms of allowing or blocking content based on said rules. That is challenging to do, but it may be worth attempting. We have managed to find ways to regulate many other industries, such as TV/movies, music, video games, etc., either through government or privately. It can be done, to varying degrees of success.

What some folks do not seem to be properly distinguishing when talking about Section 230, the 1st Amendment, etc., is that these laws do not guarantee you an audience for anything you want to say. Yes, it is empowering to be able to just post a tweet or YouTube video on almost any topic and have it reachable by millions of other people. But if you post certain things, those companies will block or downvote or filter your post. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say such things, just that YouTube or Twitter doesn't promise to let you have free access to their large platform to disseminate your message. If that bothers you, go post it some other way.

[3rdside]

[In2ition]

If Section 230 were repealed, I would shut this site down the next day. Because as a non-profit web site, I cannot moderate each post before it is made, so any posts made would be a liability to me. I could be sued for anything posted by anyone on the site. I cannot take such a risk, so I would shut the site off immediately.

I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. With no protection from liability, almost every web site that allows user-posted content would have to change substantially. They would either need to hand-moderate every post before it went live, or they would need to remove user-posted content, or they would need an army of lawyers. I think that would eliminate most sites from having user discussions except for maybe big ones like Reddit or maybe Twitter. But even those sites would change a lot.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Section 230. When I read it, it is giving these forums immunity to suits against them for what someone else posted, but it also says that they aren't supposed to act like a publisher.

This is incorrect. The only time that a site like Twitter loses their Section 230 protection is if they themselves *author* the content. Like, if they write the post or article, then they are liable for its content. The idea is that if, say, the NY Times has a columnist who writes an article and somebody sues the Times for that article's content (perhaps it is libelous), then yes, the NYT is liable and isn't protected by Section 230 since they wrote the article themselves.

They can and are supposed to eliminate things like violent posts, child trafficking or anything that promotes that, but it doesn't allow it to do things like shadow banning, deleting content that doesn't do those other things, suspend accounts for no reason other than disliking their opinions, or censoring, deleting content or accounts that doesn't fall under any of the other things either, and just because it doesn't agree with the political views of those that posted it, no?

This is incorrect. All of the behaviors you listed, such as shadow banning, deleting, moderating content, etc., are completely legal under Section 230 and can be done as the site operators see fit. Even actively silencing views, deleting users because you don't like their opinion, their face, etc., is completely legal as long as it does not violate other anti-discimination laws. For example, you cannot say, "No blacks allowed here," on your web site.

What do you do to curb censorship with 230? Youtube can ban or withhold earnings on a channel that was getting paid monetarily for no reason. They don't have to give that money back either. What's the solution to that? You would think that these companies could be held accountable in some way.

I agree that there are potential problems with having a few large tech companies in charge of moderating and filtering what gets posted and seen online. A conservative solution to such a business problem would be to solve it in the open market, where other companies should enter the space and provide a better service that does not block or filter such content. Indeed, companies like Parler, Locals, QubeTV, and many others do seem to be doing this, though their user bases are now smaller than the big social companies.

A more liberal solution to these problems would be increased regulation of tech companies, which I think would be a good thing overall. Removing Section 230 does not solve or even improve the problems being described here; it just removes a ton of additional content and effectively breaks the internet. Liberals might try to use the systems of government to come up with better standards for acceptable and unacceptable content, and then try to regulate tech companies in terms of allowing or blocking content based on said rules. That is challenging to do, but it may be worth attempting. We have managed to find ways to regulate many other industries, such as TV/movies, music, video games, etc., either through government or privately. It can be done, to varying degrees of success.

What some folks do not seem to be properly distinguishing when talking about Section 230, the 1st Amendment, etc., is that these laws do not guarantee you an audience for anything you want to say. Yes, it is empowering to be able to just post a tweet or YouTube video on almost any topic and have it reachable by millions of other people. But if you post certain things, those companies will block or downvote or filter your post. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say such things, just that YouTube or Twitter doesn't promise to let you have free access to their large platform to disseminate your message. If that bothers you, go post it some other way.

Thank you for disseminating my posts and correcting me. I do appreciate it. Definitely, food for thought.

[AmareIsGod]

You must have missed this Tweet from another thread. There isn't outrage from the other side about what happened. There's apparently outrage that the authorities are asking people that knew the bomber if they can provide any information. You know, to determine motive, if there may be others involved, etc.,

But "the other half" seems to think it's stupid, apparently, to be asking for information "when the bomber is already dead".

[In2ition]

You must have missed this Tweet from another thread. There isn't outrage from the other side about what happened. There's apparently outrage that the authorities are asking people that knew the bomber if they can provide any information. You know, to determine motive, if there may be others involved, etc.,

But "the other half" seems to think it's stupid, apparently, to be asking for information "when the bomber is already dead".

Seemed like this was very well reported that day. Wasn't it the biggest story on the news? Also, they found the bomber, in a suicide, so what's the point? Justice wasn't exactly served, but he got his own justice by taking his own life.

[3rdside]

I saw some of it, me posting that tweet was just timely support of my previous post about how conservatives (who should really be called alt-conservatives as there's nothing wrong with conservatism) behave .. outrage when liberals do something wrong but not a squeak when conservatives do likewise.

Knowing this annoying fact - and also knowing my dad and my brother very well lol - part of the proposed Critical Thinking curriculum that needs to be taught in school must include the subject "Why raging hypocrisy is a poor character trait and is fundamentally bad for society".

[AmareIsGod]

I saw some of it, me posting that tweet was just timely support of my previous post about how conservatives (who should really be called alt-conservatives as there's nothing wrong with conservatism) behave .. outrage when liberals do something wrong but not a squeak when conservatives do likewise.

Knowing this annoying fact - and also knowing my dad and my brother very well lol - part of the proposed Critical Thinking curriculum that needs to be taught in school must include the subject "Why raging hypocrisy is a poor character trait and is fundamentally bad for society".

I absolutely agree. And I understood your initial Tweet share as well. The hypocrisy is strong. Unfortunately, my dad and all of his friends back in Ohio fall heavily into the alt-conservative side of things. Debate isn't possible with them and you'll never change their mind on anything.

[3rdside]

I don’t disagree as mentioned, but I suspect you’re underestimating the problem of wokeness in the world today - and it’s not just racism, it’s many ism’s (sexism, ageism, homophobia etc etc).

These ‘very credible people’ writing and speaking extensively about it - James Lindsay, Piers Morgan, Matthew Syed to name a few - is the case in point.

Thank you for putting that in quotes. It is hard to take people that openly support a racist like Trump as, writing credibly about the dangers of 'wokeness.'

Piers Morgan (he has definitely evolved into a far more respectable person of late, his early career was a little nasty as editor of a tabloid paper..):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

Matthew Syed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Syed

James Lindsay:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Lindsay


These are as credible as you're going to get and they're not raising Wokeness as an issue this because they're misguided, I'm fairly certain of that.

As for 'credible people voting for Trump' - it's probably worth remembering Biden didn't even come close to winning in a landslide and that not all of Trump's supporters are brainwashed. Why would sensible people do that? It's a question I keep asking myself.

I do agree that wokism is a problem -- more and more every day. And it is clear to me that had a minority of the BLM protests not gone violent the Dems would be sitting with a nice Senate majority.

That being said, James Lindsey and anyone who voted for Trump as a protest against wokism is on crack. The man put up concentration camps on the southern border. Protest voting for him is like blowing your brains out because you had a bad headache.

This isn't a fair take - Obama deported more people than Trump and dropped more drone bombs in the middle east, for example.

That said, in light of Trump's antics since the election - and reading this article below just for good measure - anyone who wouldn't change their vote might very well be on crack.

Definitely on crack after reading this:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.iris ... 3fmode=amp

[3rdside]

I found Steve Schmidt a little too full on at first and thought his Lincoln Project way overstepped the mark into juvenile attacks - and then possibly into corruption via fundraising for it, as raised as a possibility by AOC - but he is an ex-Republican and I understand the LP has been cleared, so he's definitely worth listening to. This doesn't make for pretty reading:

[3rdside]

Backed up by...

[3rdside]

And a good summary of what's wrong with US politics:

https://www.vox.com/21561011/2020-elect ... -democracy

[In2ition]

The Republican SoS in GA could be in some serious hot water.

[Mori Chu]

Everyone in Congress and the Trump administration involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election should be arrested for sedition after Biden is installed as President. They're literally trying to break American democracy and install a dictator against the will of the voting public.

[Mori Chu]

This sums up how I feel. I can sit here and try to dispute each silly tweet from some random dude or link from some random web site about election fraud, but it's pointless. If you have so much evidence of fraud, go present it in court. The fact that they have tried 60 times to prove fraud, arguing before sympathetic judges who in many cases were appointed by Trump or W Bush, and have failed every single time is all I need to know.

[ShelC]

Said it before but he needs to be removed immediately.

[In2ition]

So an hour and a half long meeting, we have 4:31 of audio taken without context. OMG, he needs to be taken out RIGHT NOW... before Jan. 20th!

[In2ition]

Everyone in Congress and the Trump administration involved in trying to overturn the 2020 election should be arrested for sedition after Biden is installed as President. They're literally trying to break American democracy and install a dictator against the will of the voting public.

Counterpoint: Everyone who is involved in Election Fraud should be arrested for sedition. If election fraud happened, and there is a lot of information showing there was along with foreign interference, that is the definition of someone trying to break American democracy and installing a dictator against the will of the voting public.

Either way, it certainly feels like a number of people are going to be going to jail. Nov. 6th is going to be interesting.

[3rdside]

This sums up how I feel. I can sit here and try to dispute each silly tweet from some random dude or link from some random web site about election fraud, but it's pointless. If you have so much evidence of fraud, go present it in court. The fact that they have tried 60 times to prove fraud, arguing before sympathetic judges who in many cases were appointed by Trump or W Bush, and have failed every single time is all I need to know.

For me it's less about current events - I think it's safe to say most of the seditionist R's know Trump didn't win and also that they won't be able to overturn the election - it's what Schmidt alludes to as to why they're doing what they're doing with regards to future politics.

This Georgia runoff couldn't be more important.

[3rdside]

Said it before but he needs to be removed immediately.

This would be hilarious if not so dangerous - pity the fool who listens to it and thinks Trump is standing on solid ground.