Social Media

Senate Democrats and Republicans Strike Deal To Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Bipartisanship isn't dead, sadly.


The Senate Commerce Committee voted on Thursday to subpoena various "Big Tech" CEOs in advance of the U.S. presidential election. The unanimous decision—supported by all of the committee's Republicans and Democrats—shows that bipartisanship isn't dead, sadly.

Democrats were initially wary of supporting the subpoena, according to National Journal's Brendan Bordelon. But they came around after Republicans agreed to also question the CEOs about the spread of disinformation on social media—a concession to Democrats—in addition to questions about anti-conservative bias.

CNN reports:

Thursday's charge was led by Sen. Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee.

"I fear that Section 230's sweeping liability protections for Big Tech are stifling true diversity of political discourse on the internet," Wicker said. "On the eve of a momentous and highly charged election, it is imperative that this committee of jurisdiction and the American people receive a full accounting from the heads of these companies about their content moderation practices."

Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the panel, urged caution amid her colleagues' complaints of anti-conservative bias. Last week, as Wicker had been pushing internally for the subpoenas, Cantwell said she feared Republicans sought to "chill the efforts of these companies to remove lies, harassment, and intimidation from their platforms."

On Thursday, Cantwell said she was pleased to move forward with the subpoenas after Wicker agreed to include the topics of Big Tech's impact on media and privacy as issues of concern.

The CEOs who will be required to testify before Congress are Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and Twitter's Jack Dorsey. Expect more of the same fact-free show-trial atmosphere that has permeated past Congressional hearings on Big Tech.

Democrats and Republicans have wildly different, nearly-conflicting issues with social media companies. Republicans believe that tech platforms moderate too much content—particularly content from right-leaning accounts. Democrats, on the other hand, think the platforms don't do nearly enough moderation—thus allowing misinformation and hate speech to thrive. This puts the tech CEOs in a difficult position because satisfying either side's demands will mean worsening the perceived situation for the other side. It also means that legislative proposals to punish social media companies—particularly the threat to remove Section 230 liability protection—are holding them to an essentially impossible standard.

NEXT: Brickbats: October 2020

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please explain your advantages and tell us how we can lean on you. We’re totally lost up here on the Hill.

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…NGr after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job Abw I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

  2. If we’re going to do this, here’s the one question I’d like Mark Zuckerberg to answer:

    Your wealth has increased by $20.9 billion this year. Charles Koch’s, in contrast, has declined by over $7 billion. Do you really think that’s fair?


    1. It’s obvious Koch needs to cancel more.

    2. Oil and other similar companies were hit harder by the lockdowns than Facebook. Is this really that hard to figure out?

      And what’s fairness got to do with it? If more people patronize your stuff, you make more money; if you sell less, you make less.

      God, I fucking hate you!

  3. “Republicans agreed to also question the CEOs about the spread of disinformation on social media—a concession to Democrats—in addition to questions about anti-conservative bias.”

    Those are one and the same; the anti-conservative bias is abetted by the socialist disinformation.

    1. But white supremacists are everywhere.
      Or so we’re told.

  4. Bipartisanship isn’t dead, sadly.

    I like how for… well, decades now, the media has indicated that the ultimate political ideal is a bipartisan government.

  5. Good lord that section 230 is based on nearly 30 year old situations involving limited online services that do not at all resemble the large internet public corporations run today by sociopaths and syncophants. You would think reason would understand this but shills for large corporations who have the ability to influence public policy and elections. Of course Congress should review that.

    1. Syncophants? Do they suck up rhythmically?

      1. There was probably some sort of rhythm to the hundreds of employees swapping back and forth between Google and the Obama administration.

  6. They’re not being held to an impossible standard.

    You can do no moderation at all and let anyone post whatever they’d like, and then react by removing explicitly illegal things like kiddie porn. You’re not responsible for what gets posted. That’s a fine way to run your website.

    Or you can moderate and filter what gets posted on your site and accept that you are now responsible for whatever makes it through your filtering process. That is also a fine way to run your website.

    What you cannot do is decide to filter/censor, and then claim no responsibility for the content that makes it through the filter. That’s where these tech companies are getting headaches. They want to be able to earn brownie points by killing off wrongthink posts, but they do not want to actually be responsible for what’s left on their site.

    1. Fat Mike hosts a cocktail party. Fat Mike kicks out a few guests who get way obnoxious. Fat Mike MISSES A FEW minor infractions, by SOME guests verbally hurting the baby feelings of other guests, and-or, talking all over the top of others, thereby violating the free speech rights of others!

      Fat Mike fucked up the job that he tackled; Charge him with a CRIME!

      1. SQRLSY doesn’t understand the difference between something occurring in the privacy of one’s home and publishing it for the world to see.

        This is one of many reasons you’ll never be invited to my cocktail parties.

        1. Blabbermouths are perfectly capable of taking the gossip from your cocktail party, and publishing it for the world to see. You want to take away their freedom of speech as well?

          You’re OK with you excluding me from your parties, but you are NOT OK with Facebook excluding you from their pages? It’s your party, and it is Facebook’s pages. WHAT is the big difference?

          1. What the blabbermouths do once they leave my party is none of my concern. Just like if I leave Facebook and come here to argue with retards it isn’t Facebook’s problem.

            I never said Facebook couldn’t kick me out, they can absolutely do that. They just can’t kick me out while claiming it’s a public forum open to everyone and they’re not responsible for the content.

        2. SQRLSY doesn’t understand the difference between something occurring in the privacy of one’s home and publishing it for the world to see.

          Do you agree that Facebook and its servers are private property? If so, then you are simply highlighting a distinction without a difference.

      2. I can’t believe I’m saying this but Sqrlsy’s right. In what other private setting do you lose all your rights merely because perfection is impossible?

        Consider a grocery that prosecutes shoplifting. Do they have to stop all prosecutions just because they decide that sampling a grape doesn’t qualify? Or because they only put up cameras in the toilet paper aisle?

        1. The grocery store doesn’t prosecute anyone, the state does. The state can choose to press charges even if the store doesn’t want them to, although that is rare.

          And this isn’t about pursuit of perfection, it’s that they want to be able to censor some kinds of political commentary. It’s not “woops, a kiddie porn link got missed, our bad!”. No one is saying you have to be perfect at that, if you can find a case where a site has been prosecuted over that I’d love to see it.

          Publishers have all kinds of legal protections against slander and libel and publishing hate speech and any number of other things. Those protections come with the condition that you only get them if you’re actually a public forum and therefor the public is responsible for the commentary they make. Once you say “well this part of the public doesn’t get to speak” you have breached the terms of those protections.

          1. Analogy time.

            My apartment complex has a bulletin board in the mail room where residents can post advertisements. It’s mostly used for people clearing out furniture when they move. As far as I can tell, anyone can go put a letter in there anytime they want and the apartment complex staff are not reviewing it.

            My apartment complex also has a website with a classified section. It is mostly used for people clearing out furniture when they move. The staff do review and approve posts before the rest of the residents get to see the ad.

            If someone posted something untoward on the bulletin board in the mail room, I’m sure it would be removed once staff found out. I’m also pretty sure no one would think the staff was responsible for the nasty letter getting posted.

            If a nasty post showed up on the website, a lot of people would hold the staff responsible since they review that content and it got posted anyways.

            What about this doesn’t make sense?

            1. Facebook doesn’t check content before it gets posted. It removes content it deems inappropriate *after* it’s posted (and can escalate up to banning the user who posted it). So it’s just like the bulletin board situation.

              People claiming social media companies are somehow publishers reviewing everything posted to their site have no idea of the kind of manpower that would be required to actually do such a thing, and involving speakers of literally every living language in the world. It verges on the impossible. All bans and post deletions are post hoc responses to what the company has deemed inappropriate content.

              They’re also private companies. They don’t have to let everyone speak on their website. Don’t like it? – go found your own social media company.

              I mean, some degree of moderation without becoming a ‘publisher’, even of things that *aren’t illegal*, is necessary for having a functioning internet which *children are allowed to use*. Because there are plenty of things which are legal for adults to say and show each other that parents don’t want their children watching, and simply curating content to some standard shouldn’t make you the owner of that content.

              1. ^ This guy gets it.

                Online forums are not newspapers. They’re not bulletin boards. Full stop.

                The argument against section 230 has nothing to do with section 230. It has everything to do with using section 230 as a cudgel to either force them to host political content or to make their business model untenable.

                To say another way, the government passed a law giving them liability protection and allowed the free market to develop extremely popular websites/apps. Now they’re threatening to take that away because you want them to promote your politics. That’s what we’re talking about here.

                1. So I post on Twitter:
                  “Leo Kovalsky II is a white supremacist.”
                  Leo responds to my post: “No, I’m not.”
                  Chemjeff responds: “Yea, Leo is totally a white supremacist racist!”
                  Ken Schultz chimes in: “That’s ridiculous, he’s not a white supremacist.”
                  Tulpa says: “But Leo is for open borders.”
                  Leo: “True, I just think it’s right.”
                  This is version 1.

                  All good. Leo can go after me and chemjeff for defamation if he wants. But readers will see the thread and come to their own conclusions.
                  In that case, twitter has provided a space for speech but not influenced it. They don’t share in the same responsibility of me or chemjeff.

                  But what if Twitter decides that some posts in the thread are wrongthink and removes them?

                  Here’s how it goes in version 2:
                  Me: “Leo Kovalsky II is a white supremacist.”
                  Chemjeff: “Yea, Leo is totally a white supremacist racist!”
                  Leo: “True, I just think it’s right.”

                  Twitter has edited the conversation to allow only one message and no rebuttal. Readers won’t see anyone denying that Leo is a white supremacist. Indeed in the example, it’ll look like Leo confirms it.

                  We’re all in agreement that chemjeff and I are responsible for our speech.
                  I think most of us would agree that twitter isn’t responsible for our speech in version 1.
                  But in version 2? Twitter has clearly endorsed and published one position while censoring the counter position.
                  Why should they be shielded if they choose version 2?

                  1. Well the good news is that either way Trump won’t denounce me. So I have that going for me.

                    Your argument is a very specific case, in which Twitter would likely lose in a lawsuit because it’s so obvious that they edited it in a very specific way. We don’t need a blanket removal of Section 230 when obvious cases would never stand up to legal scrutiny.

                  2. Leo Kovalsky

                    Also, you’re clearly not an Ayn Rand fan.

              2. “Facebook doesn’t check content before it gets posted. It removes content it deems inappropriate *after* it’s posted (and can escalate up to banning the user who posted it). So it’s just like the bulletin board situation.”

                This is a dishonest argument, but convenient for your position.
                Nobody is arguing that social media sites review all posts before they’re published. The argument is that some views are left published after review/reporting, while others are taken down.
                Bob: “Black is better than white.”
                Betty: “White is better than black.”
                It’s the exact same message with the positions of subjects reversed.
                But Twitter deletes Betty’s posts and leaves Bob’s posts up.
                Twitter has made a choice in the content they publish, not before initial publication but after comparative review. They cease publishing Betty’s message but continue publishing Bob’s.
                Twitter should bear responsibility for that choice.

                1. But you don’t address the temporal aspect. If Facebook allows defamation to be posted for long enough for me to take a screenshot of it, without Section230 should they be responsible because they couldn’t pull it down soon enough?

            2. “The staff do review and approve posts before the rest of the residents get to see the ad.”

              Good lord, do people actually think Facebook et al manually review things before they are posted? That is not how it works. No wonder there are so many terrible takes about section 230. The whole point of it is so that you can make a website that people can post stuff to without needing someone to manually review it first to avoid getting sued into oblivion.

              Imagine if someone at Facebook had to read and approve your posts before it went public. How can anyone think that would lead to LESS censorship and control over public discourse?

        2. Pretty much any other publication.

        3. In what other private setting do you lose all your rights merely because perfection is impossible?

          For off, the Internet giants don’t lose all their rights. People are talking about the loss of Section 230 protection. And similar things happen all of the time in private interactions with certain companies. Any time a company deemed to be a common carrier interacts with a client, they are held to higher standards than your hypothetical, not-at-all-analogous grocery store. It’s really hard to point to some attribute that makes, e.g., FedEx a common carrier but makes Twitter not one.

          You can love or hate the very notion of common carrier standards. But that legal battle has already been waged and there’s nothing to keep it from being applied here.

    2. You can do no moderation at all and let anyone post whatever they’d like, and then react by removing explicitly illegal things like kiddie porn. You’re not responsible for what gets posted. That’s a fine way to run your website.

      I can’t figure out why this is so hard. And I agree, they’re trying to do both things. Steer content towards an ‘outcome’ by aggressive filtering, AI machine learning to detect fascist speech, laughable standards for ‘harassment’ while wondering why their public good-will plummets the more they ratchet up the content curation.

      1. Because without moderation internet communities inevitably turn into cesspits of trolling and shitposting. See: this comment section

        1. Then leave, bitch.
          But if you’re going to post here, others are going to post arguments you might not like.
          So either leave, make better arguments, or reexamine your beliefs.
          But you’re posting under the name “a libertarian” and whining that you aren’t protected from dissenting views.

          1. So to take this further, if Reason takes down spambot ads from their forum are they now publishers of edited content and responsible for Rob Misek’s bigoted posts, or threats to kill people with woodchippers?

  7. Joe Biden hires Facebook executive Jessica Hertz for transition team

  8. ex Twitter CEO:

    Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I’ll happily provide video commentary.

      1. Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo thinks statements like this will keep him from being in the first group of people up against the wall.

      2. Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo Volunteers To Face A Firing Squad In Angry Tweet


    1. this person’s net worth is $300 million

  9. Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, after we CongressCritters tear down Section 230 at the behest of both “Conservatives” AND “Liberals”, someone, somewhere, is going to have to pay armies and armies of lawyers, in order to have said lawyers verify that, for any given user comments or inputs, that ‘A) No one’s feelings will be unfairly hurt, and ‘B) No one’s constitutional rights to free speech will be violated.

    Mr. Zuckerberg, are you…
    ‘A) Going to be a greedy capitalist money-grubber, and, by hook or by crook, find or devise SOME way, to make commenters and posters pay for the armies of lawyers?

    or… ‘B), Will you do the right thing, and pay all of the armies of lawyers, out of the pay of yourself, other over-paid fat-cat executives, and all the filthy-rich stock-holders?

    1. Unspoken “C”, not mentioned by grand-standing do-gooders… The rights of the commenters and poster, to comment and post, will go the way of the Dodo brid, and of the Tulpa-bird-brain, if the latter ever existed at all!

      1. Jerry Nadler left a pants full of lunch for you.

      2. Fuck off, Sqrlsy.

    2. Fuck off, Sqrlsy.

  10. Last I checked, it looked like Biden had an 80% chance of winning the election, but, with foreign agents using the social media as information warfare, I assume that means Putin is playing 3D chess.

    1. Now if we could just get Biden to go back to playing shuffleboard.

  11. There is unlimited space on the internet for all the stupid shit conservatives believe in – QAnon, Jade Helm, Creationism, Agenda 21, goldbuggery, liberals banning Christmas, etc.

    What conservatives want is the unrestricted ability to post that stupid shit on privately owned web sites.

    Create your own fucking web sites you Big Gov conservative assholes. Just like you had to make up a Hillsdale, Liberty U and Bob Jones U to pound your stupid pablum into young peoples minds.

    1. We would also like to have the same protection from incitement to violence, libel, tortious interference, and the like coming from Twitter as we have coming from the NY Times.

      Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else’s contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm…

    2. Remember that time Sarah Palin inspired that mass shooting with her map?

    3. Well, they tried and then the registrar revoked their domain name because BLM or something.

      So… I guess it’s… build your own website AND registrar and… you better build the content delivery network too.

      1. That was right around the time the Misek showed up. Not a coincidence.

    4. Create your own fucking web sites you Big Gov conservative assholes.

      Hey, remember how a left-leaning media outlet conspired with google to force the closure of The Federalist’s comments section?

      Fucking idiot.

      1. Bake your own cake.

      2. So? banned me for posting classic liberal comments. Its their site and they only want conservative or pro-fa comments.

        1. False equivalence. The Federalist is not NBC’s site.

        2. Child pornography is not “classic liberal”

        3. Actually they banned me for trolling and to be honest I wouldn’t know “classic liberalism” if it teabagged me.
          I’m such a proggy pile of shit.

  12. Injustice isn’t a legitimate solution to any problem, and there is no legitimate justification for making people or companies answer in court for things they didn’t write and didn’t say.

    Since the bipartisan mob is being driven by hatred of each other and a handful of platforms, the best we may be able to hope for, reasonably, is a consent decree–like what happened when they broke up the studio system in Hollywood.,_Inc.#Background

    The hope here being that a consent decree wouldn’t apply directly to anyone who isn’t a party to the consent decree. In the case of the studio system, it mostly just applied to MGM, Paramount, RKO Pictures, Warner Brothers, and 20th Century Fox. Disney didn’t exist at the time of the consent decree, so it wan’t bound by it.

    If Facebook, Google, and Twitter can get out of this with Section 230 no longer applying to anyone, the they can rest assured that they will have little to fear from new social media companies in the future.

    1. You can be sure that with the money of FB, Google, and Twitter they will spin this into some form of regulation that protects their future market share. Nobody wins in that situation except for FB, Google, Twitter, and congress-people whose pockets get lined.

  13. Meanwhile, there is’t anything about antitrust law that’s supposed to be about defamation. If this were meant to address monopoly rent or collusion in some way, that might make some sense. Instead, this is policy being written by an angry mob–that doesn’t even know what it wants apart from the hope of hurting social media or controlling it. This won’t end well.

    Meanwhile, those on the right who are cheering for this are delusional. There isn’t any senator in either party whose primary concern is making social media safe for free speech–or what the left considers hate speech. No one in Congress or the White House in the future will go out of their way to protect what the progressives refer to as hate speech–opposition to gay marriage as homophobia, opposition to affirmative action and BLM as being racist, opposition to immigration as xenophobia, etc.

    The primary purpose of the progressives in removing the possibility of being sued for the speech of third parties on their platforms is to make hate speech illegal–and to require the social media companies to police it under their supervision. You can fine, license, or sue social media companies for tolerating “hate speech” against BLM, against gay marriage, or in favor of building a border wall if you can’t bring those companies to court for what third parties say on their platform.

    The progressives are building a gallows from which to hang the right’s ability to express themselves on social media, and it’s really sad to see the right carrying lumber for them.

    1. We’re actually hoping legal liability kills social media for good. Fuck them, this is war.

      1. Yeah, I know, but your hatred doesn’t justify anything. And your hatred doesn’t make playing into the hands of the authoritarian socialists libertarian or capitalist either.

        Meanwhile, you’re giving the progressives power over you and your speech. If hating social media is making you bend over and grab your ankles so the progressives can screw you, maybe you should stop hating so much and start thinking more.

        1. We can just go back to the pre-FB days of blogs, where the authors are already liable for what they write.

          Fuck riot-enabling Twitter.

      2. Social media is just the 21st Century equivalent of bathroom graffiti. Just ignore it.

        1. This


    The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

    This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of the TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thous halt have NO Government Almighty other than The TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous TrumpfenFuhrer!”

    Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!


    “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

    “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

    Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury?

    1. Question, why don’t you ever take your meds Hihn? This post just makes me sad. It really does. It is not the writings of a sane person. It is the sort of thing shows why insanity can’t be faked. Wow.

      1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

        So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

        Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

        Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

        Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

        At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

        Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

        Thank You! -Reason Staff

        1. Fuck off, Sqrlsy.

      2. “Question, why don’t you ever take your meds Hihn? ”

        They don’t make shit flavored lithium.

    2. Fuck off, Sqrlsy.

  15. Tech CEO’s don’t have no time to deal with Washington. They’re too busy getting ready to cancel Coin base for it’s non SJW views

    1. *emendation. It’s perfectly OK for private corporations to conspire to cancel wrongthink. PBUT.

  16. websites nobody uses carry little influence.

  17. Reason has gone from tech should get special legal protection to “how dare the Congress or anyone else even expect them to explain themselves about this protection”.

    If the tech CEO’s don’t want to be called before Congress, stop relying on special protections Congress wrote into the law for them.

  18. Somebody explain to me how having CEOs come before Congress to explain the situation hurts us.

    1. Why not drag every CEO before Congress on a regular basis? I mean… what could it hurt, right?

      1. CEO’s are like piggy banks. You have to turn them upside down and shake ’em to get the money out.

      2. What good are they otherwise? I mean either CEOs or Congress? Is it better for them, or us, to learn things 3rd hand?

        1. What responsibility do you think a CEO has to the general public? They have no responsibility to tell me anything if I’m not a shareholder.

          1. They have no responsibility. But that goes both ways. You don’t seen to understand that. You think they have no responsibility to the public but also are entitled to special protection no one else gets. Fuck you. I don’t owe them shit.

            1. The “special protection” really isn’t that special. It codifies in law what any rational judge or jury on earth would support… people, not the platforms that host them, are responsible for their own speech and actions. If it protects them from anything, it’s an over-litigious public and a plethora of ridiculous civil suits. Yeah, I support that.

              You don’t owe them anything. But you seem to think that they owe you a platform. “Host that speech” really isn’t that different from “bake that cake” after all. But you don’t care about that. Not when it doesn’t suit your side.

          2. Oh no our overlords have to lower themselves and explain to the elected representatives of the public why the law should be specially designed to protect their business model. The humanity. How dare mortals like us expect these assholes to explain themselves.

            How does it feel to be prostrate before the tech industry? Is living on your feet that fucking hard? Is their dick that great?

            1. What do they need to explain, that they can do what they want with their business and property?

              Are you really going to hold Reason responsible legally for the crap that gets said on this forum just because they “moderate” spambot ads? You’re going to take Twitter to court over something that RandomJoe69 posts on their platform? It’s really dumb, and ideoligically not that different than holding cigarette companies or gun manufacturers responsible for deaths related to their products. Libertarians believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Republicans, I guess, not so much.

              But it’s not even about that. As I pointed out above, this is a cudgel with which you are cheering the Republicans for threatening to shut down these companies just so your side can get their stale, nationalist message out to the public.

      3. IF they want their special protection in the law, yes. Why not?

        Jesus fucking Christ, you just worship these people. Fuck you. If these assholes want 230 to remain in the law, they can show up and justify it. It only exists because Congress created it. Do you just think they are owed this?

        You are pathetic. You really are.

  19. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic toward Zuckerberg, and I know it’s specieist of me, but every time I watch him and he flicks that tongue out to lick his eyeballs, it just creeps me the fuck out. The way he flares his crest or pounces on a cricket I can handle, but the eyeball washing just gets me every time.

    1. The Lizard People are taking over!!!

      (My cat, Chairman Meow, will kick their asses, though, and drag them proudly into my house, where they will rot and stink, if I don’t notice them quickly enough).

  20. WHY is “racist” speech, or any other type, such a huge issue, anyway ? Since when did words, or thoughts, actually jump off a page or out of someones brain EVER ? HOW did I miss this stunning happening?! ? Wow ! Who knew ? SMMFH. See, back in the old days, EVEN Nazis got to spout their nonsense. And guess what happened ? Absofuckinlutly NOTHING. The few fucktards who are gonna buy into shit like that, are gonna buy into no matter what you do. All the rest of us lol’d at them, and ignored them. And then guess what happens ? IF they harm someone or their property, we have these funny things called LAWS, and just ;ike everybody else, if guilty, they are punished. SOL- WHY do we need hate speech “laws” again ? And WHY, exactly, can”t ANYONE say or think whatthefuckever they like ? Well, THAT is called CONTROL, and it actually sickens me to see so many people falling into this bullshit straight from the Commie playbook. There is FAR more actual danger forcing those types underground then the non existent “threat” of their words and thoughts. I WELCOME them ALL to spout off right here in the clear cold light of Day, as should anyone who calls themselves an American, especially of the liberal type. It used to be YOU people who screamed for the right to say whatever you pleased, no matter how offensive some found it. What happened ? Yeah, that’s rhetorical… Your Communism is finally shoeing clearly to all, Comrades.

    1. “There is FAR more actual danger forcing those types underground then the non existent “threat” of their words and thoughts.”

      Ya got that one right! One of the commenters here (Ken Shultz) has commented about that a few times at length, as I recall.

  21. Wow My comment got flagged for Review, Guess that’s point made lol…

  22. Congress wants CONTROL over the press!!!!

  23. While the politicians question, threaten, limit businesspersons, who limits them? They do, theoretically. The govt. rules over the public and itself, by following a guideline called the “constitution”. Who decides if this is happening? The govt. of course. The govt. governs itself, punishes itself, promotes itself, rewards itself with citizen’s assets without accountability to citizens. The govt. thrives at the expense of a struggling populace.
    Why can’t the citizens govern themselves, like the authorities do? The govt. won’t allow it. It forces itself on the populace, with the support of most, but not all. The individuals who want to self-govern using reason, rights, choice, are called anarchists, terrorists. But those who want to govern all, call themselves servants, protectors of all, except for some individuals who they claim need to be sacrificed to benefit the “common good” or “national security”. What is that? Whatever the rulers say it is. And it changes, by their whim. They rule, citizens obey. Obedience is called order, even if it appears to be chaos, violence, destruction of life and property.
    When rules rule, it’s not safe to question them, to point out their contradictions, their hypocrisy. Violence, more sacrifice of citizens follows unrest. But this is the main product of coercive govt., e.g., unrest and chaos, not order. Is this better than freedom to self-govern? We are not allowed to find out. Citizens are forced to obey their masters, by threat of death. And this is “the common good”? We know it because our masters tell us so. To doubt this is to be a domestic terrorist, an anarchist, an unruly citizen, i.e., one who is a sovereign, unruled, free to live & let live.

  24. ^Very deep thoughts. I’d blame it all on thinking…
    it’s .. “a guideline called the “constitution””… Instead of acknowledging it as a Supreme Law. That doesn’t rule people but the government itself (i.e. “shall make no law”) which by limiting the legislative branch actually ensures the right to self-govern in that area. Also in that Supreme Law is a distinctive SCOTUS to be the police of the legislative and executive branch – all police personnel to be elected by the people.

    So really; for the most part it’s the people’s failure for electing crooks as police enforcement over our government. And certainly the media hype and confusion implanted about the reasons to vote play a gigantic role. The first question every citizen should ask before voting for a representative is how honest that individual is about upholding the Supreme Law.

    1. (i.e. The Law that rules the almighty government and it’s coercion)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.