Always remember: It's not Democrats vs Republicans. It's the poor vs rich.
No alt text for our blind brothers and sisters? For shame comrade.
For a long time, I thought the Democrats were fighting valiantly but just overwhelmed by the oligarchy and the Republicans. Then I saw that the Democrats keep losing fights they should win and figured they must be just weak and ineffectual. Then I kept seeing them backing off without putting up a fight at all and decided they were gutless cowards. Finally I noticed that enough of them keep voting with the Republicans to always make sure the Republicans more or less win almost every fight, and that they keep starting from a Center position and bargaining to the Right, and eventually after enough of that it became impossible to ignore the only conclusion that actually fits the facts: The Democrats are not over matched, they aren't weak, they aren't cowards...they're complicit.
Respect.
blind brothers and sisters
No gender-neutral language for our non-binary siblings? For shame, comrade.
The wealthy have unbreakable class solidarity. If only we could be more like them in that aspect.
It's not even that. Rich and poor both depend on section 230 existing. This is politicians being out of touch morons.
The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling...
It's only baffling if you cling to the ever-more-laughable belief that the Democrats are any sort of meaningful opposition.
If you instead simply shift to the ever-more-supported belief that they are in fact essentially oligarchic co-conspirators, then the timing makes perfect sense.
Of course they did, because that's who Democrats are. They are controlled opposition that only talk about opposing Republicans, in the end they legislate exactly like them.
something something illusion of choice
This goes out to anyone still thinking there are some good people among the very rich. They‘re all robbers and thieves without a conscience.
"We need to court the good billionaires."
Not surprising, considering how spineless they've always been.
Spine has nothing to do with it, they just don't work for us.
They‘re all robbers and thieves without a conscience.
They all work for the people who give them money to win elections. Republicans work much harder for the rich, that's why they have been winning elections with accomplished felons, pedos and liars who will do their bidding at all costs.
In this case it's not mere spinelessness, they were pushing for this before Trump to server the interests of their corporate masters (copyright lobby mostly, though big tech would also benefit).
Yes. US democrats are corporate. Not nearly as far to the left as the media would have you believe. I’m not even convinced we have a true left wing.
Certainly not in Congress.
I wasn't talking about spinelessness toward Trump (exclusively).
Section 230 is supported by the corporate types too since all the big Internet companies would cease to exist without it. This is brain dead boomers not understanding how the Internet works.
Nah, they don't give a shit if it's gone, because they'll just pay an army of lawyers to make it go away.
What this does is makes any competition against any established Internet companies impossible for anyone who can't afford said army of lawyers. That's why they're the main driving force behind it. Any new social media startup will swiftly find themselves buried in litigation over the content people post on their site.
It's far worse than you think.
Isn't this a death knell for Big Social Media?
No, because they can afford the legal fees. It will be worst for smaller sites. From the article:
With Section 230, if a website (or a user!) wants to defend its right to keep content up (or take it down), winning such a case typically costs around $100,000. Without those protections, even if you’d ultimately win on First Amendment grounds, you’re looking at about $2 million in legal fees. For Meta or Google, that’s a rounding error. For a small news site or blog, it’s potentially fatal. And this includes users who simply forward an email or retweet something they saw. Section 230 protects them as well, but without it, they’re at the whims of legal threats.
True but Big Social would have many orders of magnitude more lawsuits to deal with. I guess it might still not matter.
Well, luckily many large Lemmy instances are outside the US. 😂
it's already happening in the UK with the online safety bill
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
