Styxhexenhammer666 is a very good libertarian conservative commentator who has a pretty large following. He makes a good point here that addresses Bill’s concern about big tech censorship. I hope Bill takes a look.
Categories
Trump is Wrong About Repealing Section 230: Here’s Why
19 replies on “Trump is Wrong About Repealing Section 230: Here’s Why”
This is a violation of the rule to “take Trump seriously, but not literally.” Trump is not calling for the repeal of Section 230 of the law. He is is calling for the “repeal” of specific Big Tech companies’s STATUS as beneficiaries of Section 230 protections BECAUSE they are violating the law.
In other words, applying Section 230 against them. Reclassify them as non-carriers, making them responsible for their users’s content.
Which seems to be what this guy is arguing for. So he agrees with Trump, only he didn’t understand that Trump was agreeing with him in the first place, so he thought he needed to make a video about it.
This is definitely one of Trump’s failings, but after four years people ought to understand this about him. (Directed at the video’s creator, not at you, Mr. Archer!)
That said, it’s a good analysis of Section 230.
Definitely a good watch. He’s got other posts as well. He is usually right and on the right too.
Agreed. They are publishers and should be dealt with as such. They ought not to be covered by the 230 provisions.
Trump tweets stuff, and more than once, stuff happens about what he tweets.
What happens has a way of being what is needed or close to what is needed, and not necessarily what he tweeted.
The concern for me, is will Trump have time to follow up?
I don’t have much confidence in Section 230 reform without a second Trump term.
Even with all of the much vaunted gains by the GOP in the House or them holding Senate.
The GOP has been the majority party in both the House and the Senate and found ways to lose to the Left before.
So yeah, this guy is correct. But his correct response and $2.75 will get me on the NYC Subway.
Libertarians!
I do like the hair and mustache.
Is he in a band?
People with long hair and a beard or mustache are not “abby-normal” like you’d always assume they are. We just don’t care what other sheeple think. As the old saying goes, don’t judge a book by it’s cover.
No, but they tend to be in bands or in the software industry.
And not, for instance in restaurants (it’s a hair in the soup thing).
It’s a “I do my own thing” look.
Which is quite normal, in some industries.
You do like to fly off the handle, Bob.
I hope you have a Pilot’s License.
Just can’t stand sanctimonious people who have to label everyone that doesn’t live up to their moral code of ethics or appearance. Has that WICCAN from Delaware responded to you yet? You could just change your on-line name to Mr. Stereotype and then everyone would know why you write the way you do.
I can’t emphasize enough how much I do not care what you or anyone else says or thinks about me. The only opinions I care about come from my family and friends. My wife and I (yes she’s Christian) have been together for over 40 years, we have 2 kids and 4 grandkids and they are my only concern. What you have to say makes me smile. I look forward to your responses daily, it just proves my point that you (and my wife and kids) are all living your lives for a LIE. See you in hell.
Get over your Sick Self.
By your own admission you should be in a Sanitarium, Bob.
Drool someplace else.
Why aren’t you on Suicide Watch?
come on you two! We’re all Bill fans here and most likely share far more common principles than differences. No need for dogma and animosity towards each other in this members area
All Bob has to do is walk away.
He jumped on me for mentioning God.
Any Atheist who has to react to the mere mention of God with that much anger is not true to their Non-Faith.
Were I a True Atheist, and you mentioned God, I would regard you as though you were reciting the full script of a Scooby Doo show from the 1970’s.
As a Christian I am quite used to being in the same room as Atheists, and leaving them to their own devices. I care, of course, but God is quite capable to dealing with them, come the time.
Thanks for the reminder about why we’re part of Bill’s forum. We love this country and will do whatever we can to preserve this nation. The old saying is still true,”Religion and/or Politics do not mix.
Wow, how “christian” of you. You’re right ,you brought the subject of religion up to prove your “moral superiority” to any one that doesn’t think the way you do.Why can’t you keep your intolerance of any one that speaks against your belief systems to your self? Your little “hints” about what I should do to myself to learn your “truths” are not very Godly. YOU DON’T NEED RELIGION TO BE MORAL. IF YOU CAN’T TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG, YOU LACK EMPATHY, NOT RELIGION. All though I look forward to your responses daily, what Mr. Archer said is true, this isn’t the forum for this type of discourse. So I will leave you to your own miserable existence with these words, SEE YOU IN HELL YOU HYPOCRITE, AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I’m done with this clown.
He is proud of his hair.
He can give you a long speech about how long hair is natural for men and was more usual for xxx years etc, or aristocratic or something.
Must admit I prefer shorter hair on men. I like men to look like men.
Besides men’s hair doesn’t have the same quality as women’s when it’s long.
Long hair, beards and tattoos are still a statement of what you do for a living.
Maybe that is not fair, but it is what it is.
I notice dressing up does not involve a tie but still involves a suit or a presentable pair of slacks and a sports jacket.
I personally like to keep my hair short, and shave when I want to look good.
And want to own a three piece banker’s suit with a Huntsman’s watch (and the Montblanc No. 146 a friend gave me in the pocket).
But I suspect I am a Dandy at heart.
Instead of Repealing Section 230, how about enforcing it.
When a tech Giant does something like, oh, I don’t know, labeling something as political in an uneven way, or
treating a post with the words “Voter fraud” and “Stacy Abrams” differently from a post with the words “Voter fraud” and “Trump”
Then the Trump administration can let it be known that such a company has lost their Section 230 protection.
That’s exactly what should be done. If a platform begins to editorialize, the agency in charge of enforcing the CDA (I think it might be the FCC) that the site has 7 (o 14 or 30) days to reverse its editorializing and cease to continue such activities or it will become legally liable for ALL content posted from the date that the letter was sent.
Further, make it so that any time a company is legally liable for criminal activites, the ENTIRE board and ALL C-level execs serve full prison terms for it and that their personal fortunes are forfeited under civil asset forfeiture. 🙂
Then, all someone has to do is find a stupid 13-year old girl who sent a topless photo to her equally stupid 14-year old boyfriend and report it, sit back, and watch as Zuckerberg et al lose EVERYTHING.
— G.K.
Is the full text of Section 230 one that can be enforced unambiguously, or was it written by lawyers?