Section 230

YouTube ISIS Videos Mean the Supreme Court Could Reconsider Section 230

Plus: A court rejects a "discriminatory harassment" ban at a Florida university, a private space mission heads back to earth, and more...

|

The father of woman killed by ISIS asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a case involving algorithms, terrorism, and free speech. As YouTube celebrates its 17th birthday, the game-changing user-generated video platform once known for funny pet videos and other benign content continues to attract criticism for its alleged role in fostering extremism. Ample evidence casts doubt on the idea that social media platforms are radicalizing American youth, but high-profile anecdotes about bad turns allegedly inspired by YouTube, Facebook, and other sites make it hard to combat such claims. Now one such story may come before the Supreme Court—and threaten a foundational internet speech law.

The case (Gonzalez v. Google LLC) involves a man whose daughter was killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris. The grieving father, Reynaldo Gonzalez, sued YouTube's parent company, Google, under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. Gonzalez claims that ISIS posted recruitment videos on YouTube, that YouTube recommended these videos to users, and that this led to his daughter's death.

Gonzalez's circumstances are tragic, but his claim is convoluted and patently illogical. To buy it, you have to buy the idea that without YouTube, the terrorist group not only would be unable to recruit members but would cease to use existing networks to carry out attacks.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear Gonzalez's case. But if it does, it could give the Court a chance to consider the parameters of Section 230, the federal law preventing internet companies and users from being liable for all third-party speech (and pretty much the backbone of the internet as we know it).

SCOTUSblog notes that in 2020, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that "in an appropriate case, we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms." (Thomas made a similar suggestion earlier this year.)

"The petition in Gonzalez v. Google LLC tries to present itself as the case Thomas has been looking for," writes Andrew Hamm:

The district court dismissed Gonzalez's claim on the ground that Section 230 nonetheless protected Google for its recommendations because ISIS produced the videos, not Google. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, concluding that Section 230 protects such recommendations, at least if the provider's algorithm treated content on its website similarly. However, the panel in Gonzalez considered itself bound to reach this result because of a recent case on the same issue that another 9th Circuit panel decided while Gonzalez was pending. The Gonzalez panel further concluded that, if it could resolve the question itself, Section 230 would not protect a provider's content recommendations.

Gonzalez admits that the circuits to face this question are not split. Instead, Gonzalez suggests that, had his case simply come out before the other 9th Circuit decision, then Google would be the one seeking review. Regardless, he maintains, the providers' financial dependence on advertisements and hence on algorithms that can target users makes this question of recommendations important to resolve.

Gonzalez is far from the first person to sue social media companies over terrorist acts. But these people "have yet to talk a court into agreeing with their arguments," as Tim Cushing noted at Techdirt last fall.

"The facts in these cases are invariably awful: often people have been brutally killed and their loved ones are seeking redress for their loss. There is a natural, and perfectly reasonable, temptation to give them some sort of remedy from someone, but as we argued in our brief, that someone cannot be an internet platform," wrote constitutional lawyer Cathy Gellis in 2017:

There are several reasons for this, including some that have nothing to do with Section 230. For instance, even if Section 230 did not exist and platforms could be liable for the harms resulting from their users' use of their services, for them to be liable there would have to be a clear connection between the use of the platform and the harm.

Section 230 "should prevent a court from ever even reaching the tort law analysis," added Gellis. "With Section 230, a platform should never find itself having to defend against liability for harm that may have resulted from how people used it."

A new study backs up what advocates for Section 230 have been saying for a long time: The law protects small companies and creators more than big tech giants.

"If you understand the mechanisms by which Section 230 actually works, the key is that it gets frivolous and wasteful lawsuits kicked out of court much earlier—when the costs are still intense, but more bearable," points out Mike Masnick in a Techdirt post about the study. "Without Section 230, the end result of the court case may be the same—where the company wins—but the costs would be much, much higher. For Facebook and Google that's not going to make a huge difference. But for smaller companies, it can be the difference between life and death."

"Larger enterprises are less impacted by lawsuits," point out the authors of the study, in a report titled "Understanding Section 230 & the Impact of Litigation on Small Providers."  A large company "may already have: 1) lawyers ready to deal with lawsuits (allowing the business to continue with minimal disruption); 2) insurance coverage that can offset the cost of a defense, a settlement, or a damage award; and 3) sufficient revenue and cash reserves such that most cases are viewed as a cost of doing business rather than a cataclysmic event."

Small companies are less likely to have or be able to afford any of these things, making it less likely that they will fight even lawsuits that they would win.

Politicians, alas, have taken to scapegoating Section 230 for basically anything they or their constituents don't like about the internet. And lawyers keep getting creative in their anti–Section 230 arguments, suggesting that while Section 230 may broadly protect internet platforms from liability for many things that users post, the law does not covers various facets of these platforms—their design, their algorithms, etc..

Occasionally, judges appear sympathetic to this. In Taamneh v. Twitter, which the 9th Circuit ruled on last year, Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that Section 230 protects "only traditional activities of publication and distribution—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, or alter content—and does not include activities that promote or recommend content or connect content users to each other. I urge this Court to reconsider our precedent en banc to the extent that it holds that section 230 extends to the use of machine-learning algorithms to recommend content and connections to users."

"This is a really weird, really dangerous place to start drawing the line in Section 230 lawsuits," wrote Tim Cushing last summer. "Algorithms react to input from users. If YouTube can't be held directly responsible for videos uploaded by users, it makes sense it would be immunized against algorithmically suggesting content based on users' actions and preferences. The algorithm does next to nothing on its own without input from content viewers. It takes a user to really get it moving."


FREE MINDS

A federal appeals court has rejected a university's ban on "discriminatory harassment." The University of Central Florida's "discriminatory harassment" ban likely violates the First Amendment, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The case is Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright, and you can read the whole ruling here. In essence, the court found the school's policy against allegedly discriminatory speech to be too broad:

[T]he policy (1) prohibits a wide range of "verbal, physical, electronic, and other" expression concerning any of (depending on how you count) some 25 or so characteristics; (2) states that prohibited speech "may take many forms, including verbal acts, name-calling, graphic or written statements" and even "other conduct that may be humiliating"; (3) employs a gestaltish "totality of known circumstances" approach to determine whether particular speech, for instance, "unreasonably alters" another student's educational experience; and (4) reaches not only a student's own speech, but also her conduct "encouraging," "condoning," or "failing to intervene" to stop another student's speech.

The policy, in short, is staggeringly broad, and any number of statements—some of which are undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment—could qualify for prohibition under its sweeping standards. To take a few obvious examples, the policy targets "verbal, physical, electronic or other conduct" based on "race," "ethnicity," "religion [or] non-religion," "sex," and "political affiliation." Among the views that Speech First's members have said they want to advocate are that "abortion is immoral," that the government "should not be able to force religious organizations to recognize marriages with which they disagree," that "affirmative action is deeply unfair," that "a man cannot become a woman because he 'feels' like one," that "illegal immigration is dangerous," and that "the Palestinian movement is anti-Semitic."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Stanley Marcus warned against "the grave peril posed by a policy that effectively polices adherence to intellectual dogma."

"History provides us with ample warning of those times and places when colleges and universities have stopped pursuing truth and have instead turned themselves into cathedrals for the worship of certain dogma," wrote Marcus. "By depriving itself of academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern, a society risks falling into the abyss of ignorance. Humans are not smart enough to have ideas that lie beyond challenge and debate."

The Volokh Conspiracy has more on the ruling (which includes the lovely line "the state is a really big boy") here.


FREE MARKETS

Private space mission on its way back to earth. The first privately-funded trip to the International Space Station started its return trip yesterday. More from CNN:

The mission, called AX-1, was brokered by the Houston, Texas-based startup Axiom Space, which books rocket rides, provides all the necessary training, and coordinates flights to the ISS for anyone who can afford it.

The four crew members—Michael López-Alegría, a former NASA astronaut-turned-Axiom employee who is commanding the mission; Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe; Canadian investor Mark Pathy; and Ohio-based real estate magnate Larry Connor—left the space station aboard their SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule on Sunday at 9:10 pm EST….They will spend about one day free flying through orbit before plummeting back into the atmosphere and parachuting to a splashdown landing off the coast of Florida around 1 pm ET Monday.

AX-1, which launched on April 8, was originally billed as a 10-day mission, but delays extended the mission by about a week.

This isn't the first time private citizens have been able to pay for seats on spacecraft. "But AX-1 is the first mission with a crew entirely comprised of private citizens with no active members of a government astronaut corps accompanying them in the capsule during the trip to and from the ISS," reports CNN. "It's also the first time private citizens have traveled to the ISS on a US-made spacecraft."

And it's also a powerful reminder that perhaps the next era of space exploration needn't be government funded and managed.


QUICK HITS

• Air Force Major General William T. Cooley has been found guilty of abusive sexual conduct. It's "the first court-martial trial and conviction of a general officer in the 75-year history of the military branch," The New York Times reports.

• Twitter is "reportedly prepared to accept Elon Musk's offer to buy the company."

• Wynn Bruce, a climate activist who set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, has died.

• The European Union is demanding that tech companies crack down on "hate speech."

• What happened to CNN+?

• Actor Johnny Depp's defamation trial against ex-wife Amber Heard is underway. Depp testified last week and is set to be cross-examined by Heard's legal team today.

• Shanghai is fencing in COVID-19 quarantine areas. "On social media, images of government workers wearing hazmat suits have gone viral as they sealed off entrances to housing blocks in the city and closed off entire streets with green fencing, prompting questions and complaints from residents," reports Al Jazeera. "Many of the fences have been erected around locations designated as 'sealed areas', which are residential buildings where at least one person has tested positive for COVID-19, meaning those inside are forbidden from leaving their front doors."

NEXT: The Department of Homeland Security Is Broken and Dangerous

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We must organize our entire society and eliminate free speech because weak minded people must be protected at all costs.

    1. What about not offending the angry gods?

      1. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working (res20) online from home without investing any money. Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything……. https://bestjobshere40.blogspot.com/

        1. Um, that's not bad money, but I expect more youze.

      2. Gods do not exist, M'Lady, but as the whole legal profession attests, weak-minded people definitely do.

        1. So you’re saying you’re an atheist?

    2. The Section 230 Discussion is more complicated than you, and the article, describe. The question is does YouTube confine itself to being a platform provider, or does YouTube extend it's activities into content moderation or is it editing content like a publisher.
      .
      In this way the point between small companies and large is false. The question is first is the protection of 230 valid for the company. Are they a platform provider or a publisher?
      .
      In the case of YouTube, it is clearly moderating content and aggressively engages in publisher's prerogative viewpoint curating. Because of this YouTube should not be protected by Section 230. They are not "just" a platform provider.
      .
      This is especially noteworthy with regard to Musk's stated desire to reform Twitter. Musk intends to take Twitter back to being a platform that only moderates for violations of law. Separating the legal liabilities of a publisher from the legal protection of a platform provider does not diminish free speech, it enhances it.
      .
      YouTube (Google) needs to either return to being a platform and retain Section 230 protections, or acknowledge being a publisher and lose it.

      1. Hey, what kind of free speech ethic allows people to say what they want?

        1. Abolishing Section 230 is not a restriction on free speech.

          1. Tell that to the "publishers" of a comment THAT THEY DIDN'T WRITE, who get punished for the same! If I "publish" your comment here, by telling the drunk under the bridge that "Noy Boy Toy said blah-blah-Blah", and they PUNISH me for publishing YOUR comment to the drunk under the bridge, then this is speech control!

            Moron! I hope they punish YOU for MY comment!

            1. "Tell that to the "publishers" of a comment THAT THEY DIDN'T WRITE"

              Sigh. This has been covered far too many times here for you to pretend you do not know the problem with that argument.

              Once they begin choosing what cannot appear then everything else that remains has an implicit endorsement.

              That literally is what editing does. Whatever remains after the editing process representing that which the editor wants to have heard.

              1. "Once they begin choosing what cannot appear then everything else that remains has an implicit endorsement."

                Only in the minds of power-pigs and pussy-grabbers! If I SELECTIVELY tell you that the bum under the bridge said "I hate Jews", am I now a Jew-hater?

                The REAL, pro-liberty "FIX" here is to ADD a "Section 230 for hardcopy rags"!!!!

                Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?
                SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!
                This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!
                WHEN will authoritarians see and acknowledge their power-pig fascism?!?!

                NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!

                In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!

                What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!

                1. Stupid, pig headed or just a troll, with the squirrel it is hard to tell.
                  He does not understand the difference between a public platform that ,if fair and neutral deserves protection and a politically motivated publisher/editor who is neither.

                  The squirrel feels it is fine to post antifa, Isis and BLM coordinating info ,while blocking a lot of conservative and libertarian content.

                  Who do you think you are helping??

                  1. COMPUTER ALGORITHMS are making these decisions on what to recommend and not recommend (to readers)!!! MY web site, and MY computer algorithms, so FUCK OFF, property-grabbing Marxist!!!

                    Read THIS for some REAL insight into some associated matters!!!

                    If we’re going to re-write S230, we’d be well advised to ask “what are we supposedly fixing”? I used to think that FacePooo must be TERRIBLE about shutting down conservatives! As much as these “victims” yammer all day about it! Turns out that FacePoooo doesn’t shut them down until they are WAAAAY into the red zone… ‘Cause all of the outrage-posters attract like-minded folks to FacePoooo, and generate revenue for FacePooo!

                    The below opened my eyes about all that…

                    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/02/facebook-hate-speech-misinformation-superusers/621617/ Facebook Has a Superuser-Supremacy Problem …. Most public activity on the platform comes from a tiny, hyperactive group of abusive users. Facebook relies on them to decide what everyone sees.

            2. So sqrlsy spends a lot of time talking to the drunks living under the bridge. It’s all making sense to me now.

      2. The Section 230 Discussion is more complicated than you, and the article, describe.

        Disagree.

        The fact that "Protection For 'Good Samaritan' Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material" directly and by virtually every angle conflicts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is about as crystal clear as it gets.

        Quite reasonably, S230 is why this is going in front of SCOTUS in the first place.

      3. Are they a platform provider or a publisher?

        In this case, setting aside any inherent difficulties with Section 230, I think the guy's got a pretty good argument that when YouTube is actively recommending some content and banning other, politically-disfavored content, it is no longer simply providing a neutral medium for people to post things, but is in fact acting as a publisher.

        It's a separate question whether this makes YouTube responsible for ISIS, which seems like a stretch.

        1. "YouTube is actively recommending some content and banning other, politically-disfavored content"'

          Exactly. This wasn't the intention of 230, but thanks to the Good Samaritan Clause it became the practice.
          If you decide to curate you should be assumed to accept liability for what you curate, without receiving special protections never afforded to others.

          1. As I've pointed out, it's actually an inversion of The Good Samaritan parable. The Samaritan didn't ask if the man bleeding at the side of the road was a Jew before helping him. He didn't turn him out upon finding out he was a Jew. There's no indication that the road was littered with bodies and he went out and only helped Jews. 'Good Samaritan' and 'algorithm' have been twisted and combined to somehow make the parable, as currently applied, read along the lines of 'the Good Samaritan, helping Samaritans and calling for Jews to be beaten and left by the roadside, per his instructions'.

            1. That makes NO sense at ALL!!! S-230 applies equally to one and all!!! Jews-hippies-Amish, Samaritans, Jews, machs nix!

              Section 230 … STUDY UP!!!
              https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

              1. Fuck off, you dishonest fucking retard.

                1. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/09/opinions/canadians-fear-us-democracy-collapse-obeidallah/index.html
                  Even Canadians fear US democracy could end soon

                  Hey MammaryBahnFuhrer!

                  When the USA gets the 1-Party TrumptatorShit that You lust after, and hundreds of thousands of libertarians and democrats come swarming into Your Canuckistanistanistanistan… Are You gonna be lusting after sending them back to the USA, to be tortured and-or killed for their wrong-think and wrong-votes?

                  https://reason.com/2022/02/28/this-war-isnt-going-as-putin-planned/?comments=true#comment-9379980
                  Mother's Lament
                  February.28.2022 at 7:15 pm

                  Yes, yes, everyone adores me and hates you.

                  End Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer bragging.

                  Everyone adores Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer! And there you have it! Overweening narcissism!

          2. Hey EvilBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

            Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

            In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

            Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

        2. The language of Section 230 is clear, even if the courts have so far ignored it.

          When you exert control - "whole or in part" over what appears then you are no longer a service provider but are instead a content provider and content providers do not have protection.

      4. The key point seems to be that YouTube recommended the videos, it didn't just sit back and let User A post and User B view. How do they dodge responsibility for that?

        1. YouTube or some other platform could make good faith efforts to remove offensive or dangerous content, and if they missed some, well no one is perfect. But actively recommending dangerous content is different.

          1. Search engine recommended (based upon x past watching history, odds are you'll click y video if recommended) , or has YouTube tweaked their algorithm to intentionally recommend videos that align with certain view points. Because those two types of recommendations are very different from a liability perspective.

            1. They've intentionally modified the algorithm in all manner of ways. Republicans are dangerous and should be prioritized; ISIS, not so much.

              1. Fucking autocorrect, that is deprioritized.

      5. "The question is first is the protection of 230 valid for the company. Are they a platform provider or a publisher?"

        No it isn't. They are a platform and a publisher. Just like Reason, who publishes articles and also provides a commenting platform. Section 230 recognizes those as two distinct activities, and treats them differently even if they are performed by the same company.

        "In the case of YouTube, it is clearly moderating content and aggressively engages in publisher's prerogative viewpoint curating. Because of this YouTube should not be protected by Section 230. They are not "just" a platform provider."

        This is an incorrect reading of 230. The founders of 230 were very specific in giving platforms the leeway to moderate content to their heart's content. Want to keep a forum family friendly? You can moderate to your heart's content, even if you think that means being strictly puritan and not including discussion of teh gays. Want to have a forum dedicated to socialism where you purge anybody defending capitalism? That's your right.

        This site is a great rundown of what 230 actually is, and is not.
        https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

      6. "YouTube (Google) needs to either return to being a platform and retain Section 230 protections, or acknowledge being a publisher and lose it."

        Why? Because an authoritarian asshole said so!

        "You can't both be an animal-loving pet owner, and a meat-eating animal-hater!"
        Why? Because an authoritarian asshole said so!

    3. To be clear, this guy was batshit fucking insane, and yet I can't help but feel a little sorry for him. This is what 30+ years of relentless, nonstop lies and propaganda can do to people, especially those of lower intelligence and with especially weak and easily manipulated minds. And there are plenty of others out there besides him who are being driven crazy by all this garbage.

      The scummy, verminous propagandists in the media all but dumped the fuel on this poor bastard and lit the match.

      1. My experience that highly intelligent people can also be weak and easily manipulated. And then they're probably more disruptive than the common idiots.

    4. This is the history of American hand wringing. Gotta ban various kinds of advertising, because people too weak minded to resist an ad. Even the whole scare about subliminal ads which were always bullshit. Gotta ban D&D because weak willed kids will become satanists. Fast forward twenty years and the exact same thing over Harry Potter. Rap music makes weak willed kids become ganstas. Video games make weak willed kids become mass shooters.

      So now we have some dad claiming his daughter was weak willed and it is all YouTube's fault she got into ISIS. Sorry dad, but that's bullshit. You daughter may indeed have been weak willed, but it wasn't YouTube that recruited her. Deal with it.

      1. You may wish to reread the post about this event. The guy's daughter didn't *join* ISIS, she was killed by terrorists from ISIS.

      2. This is the history of American hand wringing. Gotta ban various kinds of advertising, because people too weak minded to resist an ad.

        I don't see anybody wanting to "ban" anything. People want the ability to sue content providers for any harmful (in the sense of civil liability) content they choose to provide.

        1. "People want the ability to sue content providers for any harmful (in the sense of civil liability) content they choose to provide."

          Noy-Boy-Toy is LUSTING something Government-Almighty-awfully hard, to post something "harmful" to Reason.com... And then SUE Reason.com as the deep-pockets PUBLISHER of said "harmful" content... And.... KA-ching-ching-CHING... Strut proudly ALL of the way to the bank, for Noy-Boy-Toy's GIANT payola payoff!!!

      3. All hail Baal.

  2. Wynn Bruce, a climate activist who set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, has died.

    Did he buy carbon offsets for his fire?

    1. Wynn Bruce, a climate activist who set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, has died.

      To the sound of a certain Midnight Oil song

      1. To the sound of a certain Midnight Oil song

        What's a Midnight Oil?

    2. He is the model that all climate activists should follow

      1. We could use them instead of coal in the power plants.

        1. We would need less crop land, less petroleum to make clothing, and wouldn't be burning those nasty fossil fuels. Brilliant plan.

        2. Wouldn't anything besides a human make a better battery, like a lemon, or a potato, or a battery

          1. Remember, the ovens in the concentration camps were fueled by rendering human body fat.

      2. I do have to admire a Malthusian at least following the principle of the ideology.

        Too bad more Boulder Buddhists won't do the same.

        1. The only Malthusian I know to have practiced what he preached.

    3. If only he was in a bed, Midnight Oil could finally get their comeback.

    4. He should have sat below a gigantic magnifying glass.

      1. Yeah, if he used hydrocarbons, that's pretty hypocritical.

    5. Wynn Bruce, a climate activist who set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, has died.

      There is one problem that took care of itself.

    6. A true climate activist would have sequestered his bodily carbon instead of burning it. Just saying.

      What, too soon?

    7. The greasy spot on the sidewalk - the ultimate carbon footprint.

  3. Shanghai is fencing in COVID-19 quarantine areas.

    Chain link fencing to keep out viruses. Should work as well as masks.

    1. Y'know, I feel a sudden urge to take inventory and do an inspection of certain equipment after reading stories about Shanghai...

    2. So far about 80 Covid deaths (out of 24 million people) with the average age around 78. All had severe underlying health conditions. The world has lost its mind.

      1. Commies gotta commie. If they don't, nobody will respect their comminess. Also, the numbers coming from China are guaranteed to be utter bullshit. All these morons that acted like China whipped the 'Rona, while we have all died 4-5 times haven't been in here defending them so hard these days.

        1. They are locked down in solidarity.

          1. We are all chained up in this together!

            1. My chains protect you, your chains protect me.

              1. With enough layers of fence, no viruses will escape.

      2. Any chance that the communist government in China is doing this for some political objective rather than out of fear of covid?

        1. What kind of government would ever do such a thing?

        2. Have yet to see a logical theory as to their motivation but I strongly suspect this is not about Covid.

          1. Me too.
            This isn't January 2020 anymore. Aside from CNN and MSNBC political theatre we now know that Covid isn't the second coming of the 1918 Spanish Flu. In fact it's obvious that the Shanghai confinement is far more disruptive, unhealthy and dangerous than the virus.

            Something else is definitely going on, but I have no idea what.

            1. I think it’s noteworthy that Shanghai is the cultural and economic center of China, which means it’s been more influenced by the rest of the world than China.

              I don’t know, but I’d guess the loyalty to the CCP is greater there, at least among people with means, than anywhere else in China.

              1. * Than the rest of China.

              2. Damnit, loyalty is less there.

        3. It's right out of the Mao playbook. It's why you don't want so much damned power concentrated in the hands of so few. It's not that Xi is nuts, it's that Xi has too much damned power of the day to day lives of billions of people.

          1. Exactly. One person (or a handful) can never be as effective at managing the decisions of millions as those millions will be.

            But Xi still cray cray, yo.

      3. And they are literally killing pets. I used to think Chinese were smart but this proves that there is no inteligence there. thank god we have the second amendment.

        1. We have the second amendment and we were still only slightly better than china during covid. Take a look at rhode island recently.

          1. As a country, we were slightly better than China. Many states simply didn't tolerate the mandates and lockdowns.

      4. So far about 80 Covid deaths (out of 24 million people) with the average age around 78. All had severe underlying health conditions. The world has lost its mind.

        When it comes to progressives and socialists, don't attribute to incompetence what can adequately be explained with malice.

        1. You have left out the cowardice and the utter childishness.

  4. The algorithm does next to nothing on its own without input from content viewers.

    The algorithm had jolly well better be spending its idle time thinking of ways to not be sued as hate speech!

    1. It's funny because we know this isn't true. Google said they tweek their algorithms to achieve their desired political outcomes

    2. Can’t agree with ENB’s take on this one. The companies do control the algorithm, and she is focusing only on the input to the algorithm. I think it is a worthy legal question to explore how much social networks are responsible for promotional algorithms.

      1. It’s their algorithm, who else would be responsible? Certainly not the user, they have absolutely no free will to decide what to watch.

      2. Congrats on final realizing the above. This has been the argument for a few years.

        Who knew you would become a trump cultist for saying such.

        1. I imagine that even the most fervent Trump haters are starting to come around to how bad the other side is. It's hard for them to admit it, but what redeeming qualities do the ruling left currently possess?

          1. Empathy!

            1. Tons of empathy, plus lots and lots of equity.

              1. Empathetic jackboots and equity chains.

      3. Reason did one of its periodic logouts, so I saw JesseAz’s comment. He once again misses all course, no even fine points, in thought.

        This particular aspect of social media law has never come up before here, so I don’t know I could be coming around on a topic never discussed before.

        1. This happens to you daily or you are lying.

  5. Did Gonzales name ISIS in his law suit?

    1. Google has deeper pockets.

  6. '[T]he policy (1) prohibits a wide range of "verbal, physical, electronic, and other" expression concerning any of (depending on how you count) some 25 or so characteristics; (2) states that prohibited speech "may take many forms, including verbal acts, name-calling, graphic or written statements" and even "other conduct that may be humiliating"; (3) employs a gestaltish "totality of known circumstances" approach to determine whether particular speech, for instance, "unreasonably alters" another student's educational experience; and (4) reaches not only a student's own speech, but also her conduct "encouraging," "condoning," or "failing to intervene" to stop another student's speech.'

    In other words, you are not allowed to say or do anything that makes me sad.

  7. "What happened to CNN+?"

    Apparently they didn't attend the Reason Magazine School for Staying in Business Even Though Your Product Isn't Profitable. If they had, they would have learned lesson #1 — get a billionaire benefactor who will keep the lights on as long as you promote his financial agenda.

    #BillionairesKnowBest

    1. Or a never-ending government grant.

    2. Almost ten thousand people were willing to subscribe to the service, putting their money where their mouths are. Of course, those were just about the most subscribers CNN+ were likely to get and, costing millions of dollars per year due to high salaries, the service could not meet the costs through subscription.
      ENB wishes she made as much as Chris Wallace.

      1. I wish I made as much as Chris Wallace.

    3. Is the billionaire pro-choice or a girl-bullier?

  8. "YouTube ISIS Videos Mean the Supreme Court Could Reconsider Section 230"

    This is a bit overwrought. This isn't about Reconsidering 230. It is about deciding if Section 230 should absolve a site of liability for RECOMMENDING a video. There is an argument to be made that recommendations serve as an endorsement, or close enough to editorial control, such that the platform holds some liability.

    In the long term, I am not sure how much this changes things. You will need to prove that the Recommendation system selects one piece of content over another in an "endorsing" way.

    And for those on the right who are jumping for joy on this, it isn't going to settle questions about deplatforming.

    1. It could set down a precedent that algorithms are okay, if they aren't weighted for the algorithm writer's policy preferences though.

    2. Uh, how about proving that recommended videos actually caused the specific outcome?

      And then proving that humans have no independent agency and will always do whatever some external source suggests. Then we can finally (and openly) abandon this misguided liberty stuff.

      1. Mike is on board.

      2. Yeah, this Gonzalez case sounds like a big loser to me. There's much better challenges to 230. I don't know how Gonzalez can possibly have standing-he'd have to prove that terrorists involved in the Paris attack watched the youtube videos in question, and demonstrate even some tenuous causality between watching it and the attack.

        If you're going to attack 230, it's when someone who makes money via their engagement with Twitter or Youtube gets shut down by the platform deciding to censor them. Then they have actual direct damages they can show with straight causality.

      3. exactly Earth, its not like no ever did anything like this before the internet nor does there seem to be an increase. I recall there was a lot more terrorism in the 60' & 70' of people blowing stuff up and attacking planes and people etc.
        Note even the U.S. capital was bombed in the 80's and Clinton pardoned them, when will the jan 6 protesters be pardoned for merely walking about the capital

      4. For legal liability, you don't have to proved an action caused an outcome, only that it contributed to it.

    3. In cases like these, I think it clarifies the principles of the issue if we think of the same thing occurring but offline.

      Suppose Alice tells Bob, "Hey, you should read this pamphlet on these ISIS guys, I think they have something worthwhile to say." If Bob then reads the pamphlet, decides he wants to join ISIS and blows up a bunch of people, how much moral culpability would Alice have in that crime? I would say, unless Alice is ALREADY a member of ISIS who is recruiting, the answer is zero. It was Bob's decision to do what he did, not Alice's. Now if Alice is a member of ISIS, that changes things a bit because one could argue that there could be some type of criminal conspiracy involved. But no one is seriously arguing that Youtube is literally in league with ISIS, so that case wouldn't apply. At least that is how I see it.

      1. Well, let me take that back a little bit. Yes Alice would have some MORAL culpability, but no legal culpability since she wasn't the one who committed the act herself.

        1. No idea. It really feels like it depends on the mens rea there. I'm really on the edge, though it reminds me of the FBI egging folks on and then arresting them. Something I find to be pretty shady and perhaps should be illegal.

          I'm also willing to concede a hard line between government vs. private actions of this though.

          1. Yeah, the government convincing you to do something that they arrest you for- thus justifying their jobs- should not be the same as blindly promoting something people find distasteful.

      2. Does your analogy change if Bob uses a bear in his trunk to commit his terrorist act?

        1. The bear is not legally culpable, but gets shot anyway. Now that is an analogy for American QI jurisprudence.

          1. Does Bob have a right to arm bears for their self defense?

        2. Lol. I hope the bear in the trunk has some staying power around here. I was a little disappointed how quickly “dingers” was cast aside.

          1. What happened to Chumby?

    4. > There is an argument to be made that recommendations serve as an endorsement, or close enough to editorial control, such that the platform holds some liability.

      A YouTube recommendation is nothing of the sort. A "recommendation" from YouTube is not an endorsement, not at all. It's essentially, "Based on what you have watched in the past, you might like these other vaguely related videos." It's not editorial content, but comes directly from the users own watch history.

      This makes sense. If I watch a bunch of comedy videos, I would like YouTube to recommend other comedy videos, and NOT science videos or makeup videos.

      1. I love the fact that they had to pull Trump because of how dangerous he is, but I'm sure YouTube is still full of all the terrorist videos you want to take it. Your assessment is correct, in the sense that I don't see how they are responsible for the acts of terror. I'm not sure how they can claim to not be a publisher while moderating content for political purposes.

        1. They are not claiming to be a publisher or platform. 230 is very clear. You are liable for published works- works created by your company or under its direction. You are not liable for the works created by others- even if you allow it on your platform. Even if you choose to shitcan other peoples' works.

          If Reason decided today that they were sick of non libertarians posting on their site, they would be fully within their rights to start moderating non-libertarian messages and banning those posters. That doesn't suddenly make them liable if you post a bunch of libel about your company.

          1. They are not claiming to be a publisher or platform. 230 is very clear. You are liable for published works- works created by your company or under its direction. You are not liable for the works created by others- even if you allow it on your platform. Even if you choose to shitcan other peoples' works.

            And that's why we should abolish Section 230.

            Either you run an infrastructure company or you run a publishing house. If you run a publishing house, you ought to be responsible for what you choose to publish.

            1. I see moral case of why a company shouldn't be allowed to do both. I like comments sections, and don't want them abolished because people want certain political speech allowed/disallowed.

              1. I like comments sections, and don't want them abolished because people want certain political speech allowed/disallowed.

                You presumably like commenting and discussions of articles. Comment sections are one way of providing that, and a piss-poor one at that; just look at the NYT or WaPo. Comment sections are always subject to the whims and censorship of the corporations whose sites they appear on.

                There are far better technical alternatives to comment sections, alternatives that from the end user's point of view look the same, but without being tied to the company whose articles are being commented on.

          2. The actual words in the statute are "whole or in part." When you control content - whole or in part - you are a content provider.

            You cant talk about what you want it to say, but that does not make it so.

            1. can, not cant

      2. FWIW: I tend to agree. But even if the ruling were that "Recommending" based on content makes you liable, it won't change the fact that absent recommendations of a certain type, the platform is still not liable.

      3. This makes sense. If I watch a bunch of comedy videos, I would like YouTube to recommend other comedy videos, and NOT science videos or makeup videos.

        I've never been a fan of this. Primarily because I can figure out my own choices - thank you very much, but also because the choices get skewed easily, like may have been the case for YouTube. I like westerns. When I see a western that is new and looks good (I know, rare these days) I watch it. That doesn't mean I now want to see every Western from 1920 to present on my list of recommendations.

        It reminds me of the Microsoft paperclip that pops up in Word to 'help' you with tips. It's annoying and rarely useful.

  9. "Humans are not smart enough to have ideas that lie beyond challenge and debate."

    But are we blood-thirsty enough?

  10. "The European Union is demanding that tech companies crack down on 'hate speech.'"

    Good. Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky would be proud.

    #BringBackBerlatsky

    1. Show us on the doll where the Hate touched you.

    2. "The Libertarian Case For Miniluv"

  11. Yep you tube supports the posting of terrorist videos, but not questioning fauci.

    1. Religious violence is a-okay, but a sitting president telling protesters to go home with peace in their hearts is a step too far.

      1. To clarify, religious violence by non-white, non-Christian people is OK.

      2. Love & Peace:
        "there will be blood in the streets” -
        Loretta Lynch
        “Who says protests have to be peaceful“ - Cuomo
        “There needs to be unrest in the streets” - Ayanna Pressley
        “Protesters should not give up” - Kamala Harris
        “I just don’t know why they aren’t uprising all over this country“ - Pelosi
        “You get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, let them know they are not welcome“ - Maxine Waters

        Violent Insurrection:
        “Go home with love and peace, remember this day forever“ - Donald J Trump

  12. Twitter is "reportedly prepared to accept Elon Musk's offer to buy the company."

    And democracy dies (again*).

    *Just how many times has this happened, just since 2000?

    1. It would be funny if he lowers the offer.

      1. Double-digit inflation is doing that.

    2. What changed since last week, when they planned to give sweetheart deals to people that would keep them in power? I don't think the outrage was outside of the norm for the "poison pill" approach.

      1. They finally listened to their attorneys?

      2. "Poison pill" only works if the buyer only has enough money to buy 51% of the stock.
        Elon is able to buy the whole company, so devaluing it won't work

      3. After he made the tender offer to stockholders, most likely they realized they wouldn't be able to stop him, so they're negotiating for the most favorable terms possible.

      4. He secured funding to make the whole buy, which effectively forces the board to more seriously consider it since he can make a direct shareholder tender at that point. They can't just say "Well, if we hold off maybe we can keep the shareholders from selling directly" anymore.

        I wonder if it would be considered "collusion" of some sort if other, similarly minded billionaires (because we have a whole pile of them out back, you know), each bought 14.95% of the company, reorged the board, and then sold everything to Musk all at once.

        1. Ah, that makes sense, so even if they did the sweetheart deal. The people making the purchases would just sell immediately for easy profit. Thank you.

          1. It wouldn’t be right to have employees making profits.

            1. Twitter is all volunteer?

              1. No, they get paid. But as the wise OBL says , only billionaires deserve profits.

          2. Well, I think it's more that the poison pill becomes effectively fiduciary malfeasance if they fuck the share value when he makes an offer the shareholders *want* to accept.

    3. I really do want to see the movie made about this. I am fascinated to learn about what happened on the board to get them to change their mind.

      When Yahoo's founders effectively killed Microsoft's bid to buy the company, Jerry Yang and David Filo supposedly gave each other a high five, thinking that they would be seen as victors snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Certainly, among most at the company at the time, he was seen as a savior, as the Silicon Valley types hated Microsoft with a passion.

      In reality, Yang was (rightly) pilloried for valuing culture over economic reality. He would lose his job as CEO 9 months later, and Filo would be nothing more than a figurehead running ancillary functions in the company. The board would face a proxy fight, and Yahoo would enter several years of serious disruption as various controlling interests fought for its future.

      I get the desire to preserve the culture of your company, but when you go public, you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders. It is no longer YOUR company. That the board of Twitter figured this out means someone behind the scenes was slapping the shit out of them, and I want to hear that story.

      1. I would like to hear the story as well. I heard rumblings last week that the excuse for not accepting was that the board didn't think Musk could actually finance the purchase. So it may end up being as simple as they believe the world's richest man can't actually afford the purchase, and are attempting to call a non-existent bluff, with the understanding they can back out of the deal anytime before signing.

        1. If that were true though, there would be no need for a poison pill. They could have easily called the bluff by saying that they did not see any financing details.

          I think more likely is that major investors- not the board- weren't sure if Musk was serious or not. They thought it was one of his little eccentric moments, so they weren't willing to commit one way or the other. But when Musk showed up with a credible letter of intent with financing details in it, the investors very clearly told the board that the sale was going forward whether the current members supported it or they were replaced.

          1. That's a good point.

          2. There's also the conflation of the two narratives as well. In addition to fiscally, it would be a bad PR move to sell out your corporate culture on the first billionaire's eccentric moment as well.

      2. There really is a whiff of the Yahoo situation to all of this. I honestly suspect that Musk really wont' be able to bring back the glory days of Twitter circa 2010, when it really was largely a free-for-all, because the mostly woke workforce will sabotage whatever efforts he makes to do so. On top of that, he has his fingers in a lot of pies right now, and making a wholesale change back to Twitter's early years culture would take a great deal of micromanagement and tard-wrangling of the board.

        1. I suspect you may be right, but we can dream.

        2. It will likely depend on just how bad the infection is, and if he can find similarly minded people to start acting as antibiotics to root out the censorious from the employee rolls.

        3. IDK. I wasn't part of Twitter in 2010 and don't exactly know what the glory days entails. AFAICT, he would be well served to put someone like Trump in charge of half of Twitter and somebody like Bloomberg in charge of the other half, roast his marshmallows as the flame rises and get out before it's reduced to ashes.

        4. He doesn't have to fix it, he just has to show the shady shit going on under the hood.

      3. "when you go public, you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders. It is no longer YOUR company."

        This is what the Reasonistas and our resident establishment lefties pretend not to understand. CEOs pushing creepy woke bullshit aren't speaking ex cathedra unless the shareholders have actually supported it. That's why Blackrock was created.

  13. "Twitter is 'reportedly prepared to accept Elon Musk's offer to buy the company.'"

    Many of our progressive allies are pretending to be horrified by this development. Key word: pretending. Except for the lowest of the low-info poor voters, modern progressives are perfectly aware they're on the same side as billionaires.

    #LibertariansForTrustingBigTech

      1. The right ones.

    1. I was wondering what your take would be on this, OBL. Was expecting something along the lines of cheering on the billionaires….

      #ExceptForElon

    1. Maybe some of them should set themselves on fire.

      1. Only some?

      2. Can we help? .... set them on fire I mean?

        1. I'll chip in for some gasoline for that.

    2. Good old Musk. Always sticking 4.20 in everything.

  14. Whats more racist? The word Marijuana or thinking only minorities use it?

    Washington to ban the word as it is somehow racist.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/citing-racism-washington-state-bans-the-word-marijuana-from-all-state-laws

    1. All other problems in Washington must have been solved.

    2. Since Melanie Morgan is Black she gets to use her racist first name.

    3. Better idea: Ban all laws with the word marijuana.

    4. How are they going to legalize marijuana if they ban the world "marijuana"?

      1. Easy the will refer to it as "darky jazz cigarettes"

      2. what is not illegal is legal. if the law read... 'traffic stop...reasons...marijuana, (other drugs)' then that would effectively return 'marijuana' into the citizens powers to do as they choose with it.

        If the excuse and rallying call is racism that gets that done, it is a good thing.

        1. Disagree. The “when in doubt, just claim racism” approach serves no person or purpose well.

    5. It's vaguely like the Anglo / Saxon language divide ~1000 years ago, where the Saxon words for similar topics became considered vulgar, in that "marijuana" is basically just the Mexican word for "cannabis", with the added 21st century twist that the "Angles" here now feel bad about the "Saxon" words having become offensive.

      So they're going to ban its use.

      Because banning the use of foreign words is the best way to honor native speakers.

      ---

      They're lefties, don't look for sense. You won't find it.

      1. Maybe not sense, but certainly leftist consistency: they do or say whatever might gain them power, regardless of factual truth, logic, law, or morality.

      2. then doesn't it make it racist to ban a word from a another language. was going to say foreign but Spanish is kind of native to the land

        1. Nahuatl and Mixtec are native. Spanish is the language of their European conquerors.
          Which makes their pretense that calling it "Marijuana" is racist, even dumber.

      3. the Anglo saxons vs the Normans

    6. “Even though it seems simple because it’s just one word, the reality is we’re healing the wrongs that were committed against Black and Brown people around cannabis.”

      I'm for this. It's a great way to make myself feel better without actually doing anything at all. It's what makes all this word crime stuff so satisfying. Low effort, high self-satisfaction. And so, the next time a black business owner is getting his hand chopped off by the CHAZ Cjunta I can smile knowing he's really appreciating me.

      1. It's what makes all this word crime stuff so satisfying. Low effort, high self-satisfaction.

        ^

        + 0% chance of actually disrupting existing power structures.

    7. Can I still hand out MaryJanes on Halloween?

  15. Remember, Isis can Tweet but Trump can't.

    1. And above all, remember that there is no viewpoint discrimination involved in this.

      1. He got hired last year.

        1. CNN+ Launched on March 29th. 27 days ago. Shut down announced on April 21st.

          1. Do you think there was no development period prior to launch? Honestly confused as to why you think you are right here.

            Wallace got hired last year to be one of the prime shows on CNN+. He worked through development on the idea for his show starting last year.

            The air date of when they launched is not when cnn+ began. They've been advertising it for almost 6 months at this point if not longer.

            1. If there was any development prior to launch, could anyone tell?

              Based on viewers, my guess is no.

    1. Weeks. Cnn plus didn't last 1 month.

      1. Wallace was an employee prior to the service going live...

  16. Hillary Clinton continues to try to claim generating false trump russia intel abd forwarding it to the FBI and State departments is legal privileged materials.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/clinton-campaigns-11th-hour-attorney-privilege-ploy

    1. Because she is privileged.

      1. Keep it up and you might kill yourself in a jail cell.

        1. ^+
          Funny

      2. She certainly has been so far.

    2. It is a bizarre formulation. "Sussman was not acting on behalf of any client at the time when he tipped off the FBI. And you cannot see his records, because of the relationship between him and his client at the time."

      Curious, that one.

      1. They must have figured the ploy worked well enough for critical race theory in schools.

        1. "Thus, your honor, logic and consistency are racist."

    3. Kind of sounds like actively providing disinformation.

  17. Not a peep out of Edward Snowden since February 27th, at least not a peep on Twitter. Odds he is no longer alive?

    His last tweet:

    “I'm not suspended from the ceiling above a barrel of acid by a rope that burns a little faster every time I tweet, you concern-trolling ghouls. I've just lost any confidence I had that sharing my thinking on this particular topic continues to be useful, because I called it wrong.”

    1. You are sick.

      1. Most righteous people are.

        1. Self-righteous isn't righteous.

    2. More than likely, if you don't have anything nice to say about your home government, say nothing at all.

      This is a good time to remind everyone that the only reason Snowden is in Russia is that the Obama State Department conspired to get him stranded there. He was on his way back from Hong Kong to south america, flying through countries that didn't have extradition treaties- Russia, then Cuba. The US canceled his passport, and then told Cuba that if they wanted softening of relationships, they would need to deny Snowden's travel.

      I am disappointed but not surprised if Snowden has ultimately compromised some principles in order to survive in Russia. He likely had to share American intelligence with them, and now cannot speak up for journalistic integrity in the country because Obama forced him into that position.

      1. Well, it was either strand Snowden, or Obama-drone him.

      2. You could almost say Snowden got...snowed in.

        1. "Make it rain? I'm makin' it snow!"

          You can practically picture Flo Bama dancing to it in his fat suit.

        2. Or was victimized by a snow job...

    3. It's like here. An ENB report on fascist censorship is suddenly commandeered by frustrated national socialists eager to burn books, Beatles albums, ballots and declare "Marshall Law" so Greene Teeth can save Orange Hitler from other looters like ENB and Pelosi. The National Socialist Review commentariat must be pretty boring to them.

      1. “Beatles albums”

        What year do you think it is, Hank?

  18. Remember the homeless covid surge in California that caused panic and led to those expensive homeless camps and renting out hotel rooms for the homeless? Turns out the surge in deaths is from overdoses. Covid has evolved and is injecting drugs into people.

    https://justthenews.com/government/local/los-angeles-sees-over-50-increase-homeless-deaths-during-covid-overdoses-are

    1. It’s the fentanyl variant.

  19. At this point Ukraines main economic engine is getting money from the us and other countries. The US pledges another 700 million

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/blinken-austin-pledge-700m-in-aid-and-return-of-diplomats-to-ukraine-after-visit

    Could this be tied to all the investments in the Ukraine held by democrat linked firms like The Atlantic Council and various politicians?

    1. The big guy gets 10%.

      1. Ukraine's ROI on its investment in Biden is quite impressive.

    2. This has always been the case.

      The Atlantic Council (which is kind of like NATO's public relations arm) originally said Ukraine is not important to European security. Indeed this is what led Russia to agree to the agreement between NATO and Russia to let Ukraine disarm its nuke capabilities. But as soon as Ukrainian oligarchs started donating to the AC, and started hiring folks in DC to their boards...well, for some reason if became super important to the world.

      (FWIW: If I were a rich oligarch in Ukraine who had just emerged from 50 years of oppression under Russia, I would definitely do everything ethically in my power to advocate for protection from western europe. I have no problem with Ukraine wanting to avoid further Russian domination and meddling. The blame here is on the west and Washington DC elites in particular for allowing themselves to be captured like the greedy fucks they are.)

      1. The problem is the decades long money laundering like activities going on in that country from a major party. It is one of the primary reasons Ukraine is now focused on, to protect politically connected interests. This war has gotten far more involvement than other military escalations in the past, primarily due to the investments there.

        1. It is not just one party. Many of Trump's staff were likewise caught up in this nonsense. It is a sad fact that the Eastern Europeans became experts in graft after decades of Communist politics.

          1. But how many of Trump’s staff are now in positions to get us increasingly involved in this war?

            Not that it makes them less immoral for the graft. Just makes them not responsible for what we’re doing now.

            1. But when you have everyone on the dole, you do not get real opposition. It's all a bunch of "sure we need to be there, but he's doing it wrong...give me control of the feeding trough...I mean, foreign policy, and we'll do it right!"

          2. Don't remember Mitt Romney being on Trumps staff

            1. Mannefort and Gates were though.

    3. Would you like to buy a bridge?

      1. So are you claiming that there are no investments in the Ukraine by the Atlantic Council and various Dem politicians, Shrike?

  20. Study reveals how often stories negative towards Biden are being censored by silicon valley.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/big-tech-censors-criticism-of-biden-more-than-600-times-study

    1. How else can we protect Democracy?

  21. So with the entire pro 230 diatribe by ENB she continued to ignore the primary issue with 230, their allowance for violations of contract clauses.

    If moderation was clear with defined rules there would be less consternation against 230. The problem is the companies use vague and ever changing rules including kicking people off for violations of newly made rules for past postings. No other industry is allowed to make these vague clauses and hold consumers of the other side of the contract to ever changing rules and regulations against one side. These are unconscionable terms that are simply not allowed for other companies. It is far too one sided in application. That is the problem with 230. Not the extreme cases like disallowing terrorist support. It is easy to make a clear rule "no posting of recruitment materials for terrorist linked organizations called put by State. " Simple and covers them. Instead it is "no mean language" which allows death threats against conservatives but gets conservatives get kicked off for calling a trans having mental issues. That is the problem.

    1. I too would love to be able to change a contract

    2. allowance for violations of contract clauses

      To be fair, this isn't written into section 230, it's just the way California judges have been interpreting section 230 for the past 20 years.

      1. Which means sometime over the last 20 years, preferably about 19 years ago, Congress should have fixed it to make this explicit. But instead everyone just pretended that this wasn’t a problem

      2. 230 upholds arbitration and judge locations to the areas around silicon valley. It is incestuous.

    3. Also, they can change the rules without telling you, and enforce them against you also without telling you (shadow bans).

    4. Well, let's think about this for a moment. The fact of the matter is, Twitter/Facebook/etc. belong to their owners, they do not belong to the users. So regardless of what the Terms of Service says, regardless of what Section 230 says, ultimately, the owners have property rights to decide what can and cannot happen on their own property. So if the ToS says "you may not say X on my property", then they have the right to do this based on their property rights, not based on anything regarding Section 230.

      1. These private companies do indeed have the right to do as they please with their property. The question is do they get legal immunity for the speech they host as a neutral platform, or do they have the same liabilities as other publishers.

        1. The question has been settled by Section 230, which says they do not have liability for users’ speech. Section 230 doesn’t make any distinction between platform or publisher, by the way.

          1. In a debate about section 230 being good policy, saying something has been settled by…section 230 is pretty fucking stupid. We know what’s been settled by section 230. The question is if it’s right.

      2. And Jeff ignores the entire actual argument i made regarding contracts.

        Never change jeff.

        1. If it weren't for strawmen, jeffy wouldn't have any friends.

          1. He has Tony, and Joe Blow.

      3. I think the point he was making was of the capriciousness of their decision making which often violates their own ToS. Which is something I'm pretty sympathetic for. Though I don't really think legal reform is the answer to that one.

      4. None if the commies who ardently defend tech companies would be doing so right now if these companies exhibited the reverse ideology.

        Imagine:

        Banning AOC and barack Obama.
        Putting misinformation warnings on any vax promotion or safety claims.
        Shadow banning trans teachers and drag queen story hour.
        Banning trans maniacs for violent criticism of TERMS
        Putting 'read more about the ugly truths of abortion on planned parenthood tweets.
        Putting 'this link is unsafe on links to CNN, lgbq sites, teachers union newsletters, etc
        Banning anyone who defamed Kyle Rittenhouse.
        Banning all anti2a content for spreading 'hate and dangerous antidemocratic thetoric'

        The commies would be screaming bloody murder and we all know it.

  22. Days since enbs last yglasias reffrence : 20
    Days since jesseaz last yglasias reffrence :4


    1. Matthew Yglesias
      @mattyglesias
      ·
      35m
      The future of humanity could hinge on getting people to understand Skynet

  23. https://twitter.com/mail_american/status/1518323676130775042?t=fKLtHi2h0DVkO1PEUBUDVA&s=19

    Macron had an approval rating of 38% yet got 58% of the vote. Any chance Biden pulls that off in 2024?

    1. That doesn't say much. Macron got well under 38% of the vote in the first round. If you take the percentage of votes for Macron, the left, and the "center right" from the first round of voting, it sums up to about 58%.

    2. Orban using friendly media to win elections is authoritarian and a risk to free press.

      Macron using globalist media to attack Le Penn, including Reason, is democracy.

      1. False equivalence.

        Did Macron give government loans to his buddies to buy "globalist media" outlets, which were then conveniently donated to a foundation run by the government? Because that is what Orban did in Hungary with most Hungarian media outlets.

        1. Did Macron give favorable treatment to his buddies in the "global media"? Yes.

          Next piece of nonsense?

          1. Do you understand there is a difference between the government "giving favorable treatment" and literal state ownership of media outlets?

            1. No. Both are beholden to the same benefactor.

              Leave it to jeffy to get even his fallacies ass-backwards by identifying a difference without distinction.

            2. No. No I do not. The one is just a small sunset of the other.

              Same as Canada giving out subsidies to 'news' organization means the Canadian government effectively owns the recipients of government largesse.

              1. "Same as Canada giving out subsidies to 'news' organization means the Canadian government effectively owns the recipients of government largesse."

                It's just insane what a difference that this has made in under three years to reporting up here. Papers and TV shows that were ideologically all over the place became self-censoring and fell lockstep behind the Liberals.

                As Canada's the testbed for any crazy shit planned for the US, watch future federal budgets for this.

        2. Lol.

          Media institutions have increased under Orban. Friendly and antagonistic. Do you need the link for a 3rd time?

          The fact is the vast majority of well funded media goes in one direction. You see this as freedom but in countries that go against your beliefs you call it corruption.

            1. At least Jeffy’s consistent with his dishonesty.

          1. Media institutions have increased under Orban. Friendly and antagonistic. Do you need the link for a 3rd time?

            Would this be the link that was literal state-run propaganda from Hungary that you presented to try to claim "Hungary's not so bad after all"? Sure, why don't you post it again, so I can eviscerate it again.

            1. And my point is proven. The link that showed number of media entities growing in Hungary is bad. Leftist opinions on it are factual despite no facts.

              Never change jeff.

              The link was from the Washington examiner using actual number of entities that exist. Holy fuck are you mendacity and ignorant.

              1. I'm sure it was autodefect but I like the typo.

                "Jeff is Mendacity. The living embodiment of false arguments.

                After having been bitten by a radioactive Democrat, Jeff Jerker, who lives with his Aunt Dee..."

                1. "Jeff Jerker"

                  lol

                2. Haha, yeah. Look up the word “mendacity” and there’s a picture of a fat guy.

    3. With the right fortifications, he could pull it off.

    4. Newsome was at 45% approval and got 62% of the vote.

      1. The L.A. Times polled him at around 53% the evening before.

  24. https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1518569040230457344?t=792qO9oPCEQEdvefvYzk3A&s=19

    Disney isn’t grooming kids. That’s crazy. Why would you say such a thing.

    [Video]

    Later in the same segment they bring out there adult drag queens who give the young boy gifts of makeup and free "dance classes." This is a real thing that happened and was aired on ABC.

    @michaelstrahan took part in this, clapped and laugh along. He should never live it down for as long as he lives.

    This clip alone -- all by itself, pretending everything else doesn't exist -- is enough to justify revoking all of Disney's special tax privileges. It would also justify imprisoning every adult involved in planning and filming this segment.

    The child in the video also dances at gay clubs while grown men throw money at hime

    [Link]

    1. Seems normal.

    2. This clip alone -- all by itself, pretending everything else doesn't exist -- is enough to justify revoking all of Disney's special tax privileges. It would also justify imprisoning every adult involved in planning and filming this segment.

      And people objected when I claimed that the New Right would, if in charge, start enforcing state-sanctioned morality.

      1. Dude, are you seriously advocating for adults sexualizing children like this?

        1. It is a video of a boy playing dress-up on camera.
          Was he sexually abused? Was he coerced? No? Then where is the crime?

          If you think it is in bad taste, then fine. I can completely understand that argument. If you don't want to watch shows that are in bad taste, the remedy is to change the channel.

          But from the above tweet, that user wants government-imposed punishments on the broadcaster for broadcasting what he views as an obscene video. THAT is state-enforced morality.

          Do you think someone broadcasting a video of a boy dressing up as a girl should be thrown in jail? If so, why?

          1. “Was he sexually abused? Was he coerced? No?”

            Most likely he was.

            1. The kid is 11. He's neither legally empowered or capable of making decisions for himself. His parents made the decision to let him perform on that show, AND at a gay bar among other places. The coercion is the affection, fame, and adulation he gets when he puts on his dress and performs for a crowd and they cheer and tell him how wonderful he is.

              That's what pedos like Jeffy are trying to obscure- that grooming and exploitation don't have to involve threats or intimidation, and they often don't. Usually it involves giving the target something they want: gifts, affection, sense of belonging, etc.

              Because nobody threatened the kid or molested him (yet), it's all fine- just a little boy playing dress up.

              1. I am willing to bet he has been molested numerous times

          2. You were talking about moral responsibility in comments above. Now it doesn’t matter?

            1. If you want to argue that Disney has a moral responsibility not to broadcast such content, then be my guest. But that is different than saying Disney execs should be tossed in jail over it.

              1. No. And Disney execs should be tossed in jail over it.

          3. It's a boy paying dress up and then participating in a faux strip for the entertainment of grown men.

            1. Do you think that conduct should be illegal?

              1. The last part? Fuck yes!

                How demented do you have to be to think that is okay by any standard?

              2. Why don't you explain why you think an 11 year old child participating in a faux strip for the entertainment of adults SHOULDN'T be illegal?

                1. So is that a yes? You want the conduct to be illegal?

                  Where is the violation of the NAP here?

                  1. Are you not able to articulate why it shouldn't be illegal?

                    And the violation of the NAP is that the adults who are responsible for the care and concern of the child allowed him to dance in a sexualized manner for the entertainment of adults, when the child is not legally or developmentally able to consent to such sexual activity. They failed to execute their parental responsibility, and did harm to the child.

                  2. The question at hand is whether or not this child's interests are not being properly represented by his parents.

                    As much as I find this behavior sick and disgusting, I don't think letting a kid- or even encouraging them- to think they are a girl is ipso facto breach of trust. It gets close when that kid is at a bar dancing like a stripper, and the line is crossed when the kid is taking drugs and getting irreversible surgery before even reaching puberty.

                    Let's focus on that line of having a kid perform a faux strip routine in a gay bar. If that were a 11 year old girl at a bar, doing the same, we would not be surprised to see CPS visit the parents the next day. But does it violate the NAP? I think you need to give wide latitude to the parents in this case. I think they are misguided, and I don't think they are making the optimal decisions for this kid- but one aspect of freedom is that people live their lives- and their kids' lives- in suboptimal ways.

                    When would the NAP be violated? If the parents were directing the child towards a pattern of behavior that (when an adult) would leave them unable to function, or if the parents were materially benefiting from this kids' behavior in a way that puts their interests ahead of the child's. Now, it may be that these parents are receiving payments for this stuff, and that would be unethical if they aren't reserving it in a trust for the kid. But we have no evidence otherwise.

                    Overall, I think these parents are doing discernible damage to their kid's emotional health, but that it doesn't rise to the level where the law should intervene. The glorification of this behavior should be protested vehemently. And I sure hope mom and dad have a trust fund big enough for this kid to pay for lots of therapy.

                2. The age of consent in Japan is 12. A key question would be: Is an 11-year-old dancing with clothes on harmless, a vice or a crime? Lysander Spooner assures us there was no consensus on such matters in 1875 Boston, when 10 was the age of consent--including to sex for enticements. "Vices are Not Crimes" is the earliest libertarian document I have found that gets down to cases. Hand-wringers ought to read it before begging someone else to pick up a gun and do something threatening or violent. Audio is free on Librivox.org

                  1. I’d gladly pick up the gun and stop adults from molesting 10 year olds myself if the government wouldn’t send more men with guns after me afterwards you fucking drugged up pedo. Although I’d probably prefer to pick up a pickaxe for such a purpose.

          4. No Jeff, that would be, not is, state-enforced morality. One person suggesting it is not policy or law. As for whether an 11 year old was coerced or abused, given that he is too young to give consent for most adult behaviors, then, the chances are that it is likely he was coerced. Abused? Would you call a group of men sexualizing an eleven year old girl abusive?

        2. Dude, are you seriously advocating for adults sexualizing children like this?

          This is the same guy who said that child molesters should be allowed to claim refugee status, so yes.

        3. Not only is he advocating for it - he's complaining the right is advocating for state-sanctioned morality while supporting the left doing the same thing.

          He's got this thing where 'populist' is 'things I don't like' and 'sound democratic policy's us when he likes it.

          1. I'm not ADVOCATING for it. Do you understand the difference between "I don't like this" and "This should be illegal"? Surely we here at a libertarian forum can understand distinctions like that.

            If you think the conduct is creepy but not illegal, then we substantively agree.

            If you think the conduct should be illegal, then provide a precise rational standard by which said conduct ought to be considered illegal.

      2. Jeff "taking away special corporate handouts is baaaad. "

        Also jeff "teachers should have free reign over their classrooms and hide things from parents "

        Disney started the morality. Florida just decided morality wasn't supposed to be taught in schools, as that is the domain of parents.

        The fact that you think keeping school to teaching reading writing and arithmetic is part of your problem. You want indoctrination.

        1. Jeff "taking away special corporate handouts is baaaad. "

          Nope not what I said. Why don't you talk to Overt about this one, he and I are on the same page when it comes to DeSantis using the state to retaliate against a business based on speech.

          Also jeff "teachers should have free reign over their classrooms and hide things from parents "

          Nope not what I said.

          I see we are back to you inventing arguments and stuffing strawmen in my mouth.

          1. You are in such denial of your past statements. This seems to be a key aspect of most leftists.

            Any favored tax break is bad. The Florida legislature removed all favored tax breaks. Full stop.

            Regarding teachers it is SEL that is pushing morality into schools. This is done at the board of education onto teachers where millions of state dollars and federal dollars are spent on it. The key aspects of SEL is to push morality under the guise of emotional learning. Its development is from critical theory. James Lindsay has a five part deep dive into this.

            It is the left pushing porality. The right is saying to stick to learning. That is where you are wrong. You vieve stopping the morality push from the left is pushing a morality.

            And yes. You have said dozens of times teachers are trained and shouldn't be told what to teach. You are simply lying about this as usual as you evolve your rationalization to protect leftist policies.

            Ask anyone here who is a regular and they will tell you you have done so. You pushed 2+2=5 for a fucking summer in defense of the left.

            1. “Ask anyone here who is a regular and they will tell you you have done so.”

              Repeatedly. Such a fucking liar.

            2. Any favored tax break is bad.

              I disagree. It depends on the circumstance. Some are good, some are bad.

              The Florida legislature removed all favored tax breaks. Full stop.

              They retaliated against a company for their speech. Yes or no?

              Regarding teachers it is SEL that is pushing morality into schools.

              SEL is one of many pedagogical techniques for learning. Believe it or not, there is more than one way for a student to learn. Maybe for some SEL will work better than traditional methods. What is your evidence that SEL doesn't work?

          2. I bet you wouldn't mind so much if it was chic FIL a in the cross hairs.

            1. I'm not in favor of government retaliating against any business on the basis of protected speech, not Disney and not Chick-Fil-A.

      3. This is sexual exploitation of a child.

        Go fuck yourself, groomer.

        1. Why don't you provide a precise definition of "sexual exploitation of a child" for us to consider.

          1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9EZ60tqJB4c

            The same child, at 11 years old, dancing on stage at a gay club while grown men throw money at him. In any other context, this would be considered sexual exploitation of a minor. But please do try and justify this as "just a kid playing dress up for the camera," you sick fuck.

            1. I asked for a definition, not an example.

              Are we going to define "sexual exploitation" the way SCOTUS defines pornography, "I know it when I see it"? Do you understand how that type of thinking leads to arbitrary government?

              1. He provided you with a visual definition.

                1. Jeffy wants to know what the definition of "is," is.

        2. Just to be clear.
          Obviously sexual exploitation of children exists, and is a problem.
          But not every example of kids acting in ways that we don't like constitutes "sexual exploitation".
          So, we ought to have a clear and precise definition of "sexual exploitation" before we start sending out the cops to arrest parents who upload the "wrong" Youtube videos about their kids.

          1. Please defend reading material with images of a young boy sucking off a penis being fine educational material on as early as middle school.

            This is your problem jeff. You've been provided dozens of primary examples which you ignore time and time again. Then in the next thread ask for examples again.
            Youre a dishonest piece of shit.

            1. No, no. This time he asked for a definition, not examples, even though there are clear definitions of sexual exploitation of a minor which are widely available for him to access online.

              He just wants to play his stupid little game where he pretends that he's trying to argue in good faith, but he's really just trying to slide the goalposts further and further down the field so he can justify his reprehensible defense of sexually exploiting children, because they weren't "coerced," or didn't actually suck any dicks. As if a child dancing scantily clad in front of an audience of grown men who are throwing money at him is just a different shade of the same color, and wouldn't in any other context be sexual exploitation.

              1. Oh good grief. Why do you think I would be in favor of sexual exploitation?

                I'm not in favor of genuine sexual exploitation. I'm also not in favor of moral panics which wind up punishing innocent people.

                If you think that video fits a legal standard of sexual exploitation, then clearly and rationally make the case. Otherwise you're just demagoguing the issue using little kids as props. That makes you the reprehensible one, not me.

                1. "Why do you think I would be in favor of sexual exploitation?"

                  Because you are currently advocating for the sexual exploitation of a minor, while claiming that a child performing in a highly sexualized environment while dressed like a gay rent boy, for the entertainment of grown men who are throwing money at him while he performs, isn't ACHSHULLY exploitation because he didn't suck any dicks.

                  1. No, what I am asking for is a precise definition so that we may have a rational standard to decide whether such conduct should be considered ILLEGAL or not.

                    I personally think the videos are creepy, and those are not the types of shows that appeal to me so if that show came on I would change the channel. That is different though than saying that the producers of said show should be arrested and imprisoned. Do you see the difference here?

                    This is just "reefer madness" moral panic all over again.

                    1. Precise definitions of sexual exploitation already exist. If you wanted one, you'd just google it.

                      What you want is to Bill Clinton it into a "precise legal definition" that allows you to avoid accountability and responsibility for minimizing it.

                      If you need a "precise legal definition" to explain to you how it is wrong for a child to be dancing in a sexualized manner for the entertainmemt of adults, then you are a bankrupt individual.

                    2. But the objection here isn't about rightness vs. wrongness, it is about legal vs. illegal.

                      Should the activity be illegal? Yes or no?

                    3. What you want is to Bill Clinton it into a "precise legal definition" that allows you to avoid accountability and responsibility for minimizing it.

                      It is even stupider than that because Jeffy can't even do fallacies right. He wants to retreat to his motte argument (this is just moral panic) and continue defend the his bailey argument (this is not sexual exploitation and grooming).

                      It is clearly grooming. If someone encouraged and allowed this to happen to one of my boys, I would have been hard pressed to to stop beating him before he was dead. I can almost guarantee a jury nullification of the assault, but not for murder.

                      More people need to mute the fat bastard. He is a black hole of logic and arguing with him results in a net loss of honest discourse on the site.

                    4. ChemJeff, these idiots aren't worth bothering to argue with... Their self-righteous minds are fossilized! In their mind, smiling at a cute-looking child, and waving to him or her, on the street, is the same as molesting him or her, or "grooming" them! "Allowing" a PARENT of a 13-year-old to ALLOW a "child" to take puberty-delaying drugs, while he or she struggles with "gender dysphoria", is the same as a parent raping a 3-year-old!

                      These fascists are no different than an Islamofascist who says that drawing a picture of "The Prophet" is the same thing as mass murder! One can NOT argue rationally with evil and stupid people!

                    5. “In their mind, smiling at a cute-looking child, and waving to him or her, on the street, is the same as molesting him or her, or "grooming" them! "

                      The most dishonest thing the shiteater’s ever said. And that’s saying a lot.

                    6. Truth hurts, doesn't it, R Mac Who Talks Smack?

                      Now go look for for more "smart pills" under the rabbit hutch, ass well ass child molesters under every (non-"R"-Party) bed, and in every (non-"R"-Party) closet!

                    7. The only good Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo is a Dumbfuck HihnSQRLSo with his skull caved in.

                2. Of course you're not in favor of sexual exploitation.

                  You're just in favor of redefining it out of existence.

                  You're in favor of moving and blurring the line until it ceases to exist - then no one will be able to sexually exploit children, right?

                  Motte and bailey. Motte and bailey.

                  1. So you actually think I am pro-exploitation? On what basis?

                    I am in favor of precise definitions in law so that innocent people are not ensnared by vague laws. Is that not a libertarian concept?

                    1. Trotting out 'libertarian' doesn't make your argument any less pathetic. There are already laws, with definitions in place. Concern troll away, but it simply makes you look like an asshole.

              2. Right? It's not even creepy because of it being a gay bar. It would be equally horrifying if it was an 11 year old girl at a het stripclub.

                1. It's gross either way. In any other context, it would be considered exploitation. But because it involves an 11 year old drag queen, it's supposed to be celebrated.

      4. On a tangent, apparently nobody realized until after signing the anti-Disney bills that it puts the counties where Disney is located on the hook for repaying several bond issues that Disney was paying.

        1. On a tangent, apparently nobody realized until after signing the anti-Disney bills that it puts the counties where Disney is located on the hook for repaying several bond issues that Disney was paying.

          I guess that's what happens when you are one of the serfs in the Magic Kingdom.

    3. Kulture Warz YAAAAYYYYY!

      1) This is not normal, or good. This is not a boy playing dress up. This is a boy being treated like a movie star for the specific choice of denying his biological gender, and dance like a drag queen- a practice that has a long history of at least adult, if not overtly sexual themes. This message being amplified and encouraged by media is bad for children and it is bad for society in general. I have no problem with children trying things out, and if that means they act like a different gender periodically, ok with me. But this goes beyond that, and it is crossing into the realm of pushing kids (through enticement and positive reenforcement) to take on certain identities that are associated with higher suicide rates, abuse, and other Very Bad Things (tm). Kids do not make choices with a fully actualized free will. Giving them attention is subsidizing the behavior, and everyone involved in that video knows this and wants more kids going down this road.

      2) This cheerleading of a counter-culture is exactly what I talked about being insinuated into schools. You cannot look at the cheering audience or the fawning host, or the gifts from Drag Queens and consider this mere discussion or validation. It is straight up glorification of kids to behave in a way that is not normal. I'm not talking about dressing up, I am talking about playing a hyper-sexualized role (similar to the sick baby-beauty pagents of the past). And we are seeing this in schools. People who believe gender-bending, non-binary, queer lifestyles ought to be ENCOURAGED, are pushing that message in our schools. They are not just discussing or preaching tolerance. They are encouraging and brainwashing kids to act in a way that is deeply controversial at best, and truly immoral dereliction of duties at worst.

      2) This has no place in schools. Whatever you think about this movement to turn our society queer, many, if not most, parents want nothing of it. They want to control how their kids are introduced to these ideas, and therefore it is entirely appropriate for them and their elected leaders to work to purge it from classrooms. Whether you think I am a prude or not, you don't get to raise my kids. You don't get to raise other kids towards whatever social experiment you want. It is a damn shame that politicians have perpetuated a system where parents must direct education in these "majority rule" zero sum manners. If you don't like it, stop bitching about my kids and work to give me choice.

      4) Notwithstanding all that, Disney is welcome to promote whatever ideas they want. If they can play these woke games and still get parents to shell out thousands of dollars at their resorts, good on them. I hope they get punished by the market because their glorification of the sexualization of children is disgusting. The best thing that could happen to that empire is parents really taking notice of what they are pushing.

      5) And DeSantis is a cock for trying to use the Government to punish Disney for its political speech. This "tax incentives" bullshit is a red herring. Disney operates under a relationship with Florida that over 100 other entities in the state operate under. It is a relationship that libertarians ought to support, but even if it weren't I would still call DeSantis a cock for doing this. Get rid of the entire fucking program if you want, but removing it from a specific political enemy is the type of retaliation that Liberals get away with all the fucking time (c.f. Lois Lerner, Joe the Plumber, etc). It's wrong, and should be called out as such.

      6) And yeah, the reason I call DeSantis a cock here is that he could have done 100 different things to highlight Disney's intransigence. His retaliation comes off as petty- the sort of thing someone does when they are afraid to stand behind their arguments. It is a massive distraction from the broader issue, where DeSantis is in the right. It was an unforced error, and could end similar to how ending the filibuster came back to bite Democrats in the end.

      1. I agree, the Florida legislature, and DeSantis are being petty. This said, I am not certain he could have stopped the legislature from passing the bill, and once passed, vetoing it would not help his political fortunes either. In any case, perhaps for the good, maybe in the future corporations will be less likely to wade into culture war topics at the behest of vocal, dishonest activist groups. Probably not, religious fanatics don't tend to view the world through a lens of rational thinking.

        1. "In any case, perhaps for the good, maybe in the future corporations will be less likely to wade into culture war topics at the behest of vocal, dishonest activist groups."

          See, that's the thing. If retaliating against corporations for their speech means corporations are less likely to speak, then we have given the government a MASSIVE tool to crush political dissent. And while it is for a cause I agree with today, the left is FAAAAR better at this. It took them about a decade to weaponize the PATRIOT Act against the Trump campaign. They will do it to something you love, too.

          Companies should be dissuaded from woke bullshit by their customers telling them to fuck right off. It is my belief that these company board rooms are being led by people who confuse their little bubbles and twitterati as reality. The way to fix that is for reality to show them good and hard the consequences of becoming political.

    4. Disney isn’t grooming kids. That’s crazy. Why would you say such a thing.

      OK, literally choked on my food on this one. How do you refute Disney's grooming of Britney Spears and Annette Funicello with anything other than a "That's different! (Well, sorta.)"?

      Like, I can fathom a personal friendship with Michael Jackson, platonic sleep overs with kids, and defending his honor. But still, absolutely grooming kids and absolutely shouldn't be in charge of broad policy prescriptions governing kids and sexuality. And Michael Jackson is a person where Disney is a faceless conglomeration of PR execs.

  25. Peddling panic porn one office at a time:

    "S.F. startup Phylagen’s quest: airborne COVID-19 detection in offices"
    [...]
    "When the COVID-19 pandemic turned the world upside down in 2020, Jessica Green’s interest in safe buildings went from a corporate afterthought to global priority..."
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/S-F-startup-Phylagen-s-quest-Airborne-17084401.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Paging JFree!

    1. If the alarm goes off, doors automatically lock and fences go up around the building.

      1. And fentanol fills the air

    2. It boggles the mind, what a craven, irrational populace the post-industrial nations have.

  26. "So with the entire pro 230 diatribe by ENB she continued to ignore the primary issue with 230, their allowance for violations of contract clauses."

    I can guarantee you that no tech company is going to create "contract clauses" that prohibit them from moderating as they see fit. Go look at every single TOS in these platforms, and you will see that they reserve the right to moderate as they see fit.

    I get that you don't like these tech companies censoring people- I don't either. But at the end of the day, either you are talking about giving the government the ability to dictate the terms of contracts ("Your TOS must include a clause guaranteeing content-neutral moderation except for these types of content that the government deems bad content..."- which is 10000x worse) or you are going to have to accept that these private companies are allowed this latitude.

    There are two important attacks on this process that should be considered.

    1) How much of the censoring is actually being prompted by the government.
    2) How difficult is the government making it for the private sector to fix this themselves.

    Re: #2 Elon Musk is an example of a private actor who gets the importance of free speech. There are numerous other companies including Substack and others that feel that being Pro Free Speech is a differentiator worth pursuing.

    The private market WANTS to solve this problem, and the Elites in government and Big Tech are focusing us on 230 to distract from what they are really doing behind the scenes: Government is directing the actions of a couple big players, and those big players are acting illegally in collusion to interfere with the private market.

    1. The board of twittered is ~60% dnc operatives, they have been caught colluding with the gov to take down disfavored speech that said gov agencies disapprove of.

      How are they a private company?

      1. EXACTLY. And guess what? Section 230 has nothing to do with that. They will be fine because the government will make sure they are fine.

        Go look at the proposals that all these companies like Facebook are putting out there. Instead of broad liability protection from the speech of people using your platform, they are asking to get broad liability protection ONLY if you promise to moderate the things like Misinformation.

        Get that?

        The end game here is that you only get to run a platform if you are rich enough to fund manual or automated filtering of content that the government agrees with. This isn't going to improve free speech, it is going to degrade it.

        The problem to fix is the Fascism currently embedding itself in our culture. By Fascism, I mean party operatives increasingly being put in control of companies.

        1. So, just to make sure I'm understanding your position correctly, you don't think there's a way that S230 could be fixed to functionally make companies choose whether they are going to be publishers or platforms?

          I mean, that may be the case, I'm not sure, although it's not generally my sense that it is. I'm open to the possibility. But I just feel (intentional, it's not solid enough to count as "think") there's got to be a way to make people pick whether they're going to be, well, Twitter as it is today, or AT&T.

          Some optimistic part of me (about which I am very confused as to where it has been hiding the last several decades) thinks that your point about a Musk Twitter (now with smellovision! ew.) and Substack and others, is, if enough companies that are pro free speech manage to stay alive and get big enough, "market pressure" may force that "flavor" of S230-style behavior out of the ones who'd rather censor. Musk might be big enough to defy the cartel, and form a seed crystal for other companies to anchor around.

          At which point Facebook and Google will start really lobbying for Mandatory Misinformation Moderation.

          Ah, ok. That's better. It wasn't optimism, just a burp.

          1. "S230 could be fixed to functionally make companies choose whether they are going to be publishers or platforms?"

            I highly recommend reading this site:
            https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

            But in short, no, I don't see how you can change this. Reason published this article. They also allow you to post comments in this section. They are both a publisher (of articles) and a platform (for user generated content). If you try holding them accountable for the user comments, they will stop allowing comments.

            What you really want (and btw, I tend to want this as well) is a company to fairly moderate user content in a politically neutral way. But even that is going to prove impossible to enforce from the government without the government defining things like "politically neutral". Given how bad the government has been at defining "misinformation", I do not the government to have anything near to this power.

            And by the way, as I said elsewhere, as much as I prefer free expression, I am not certain it is a good idea universally in practice. Over on Reddit, the libertarian board is pretty open to any posts. That means it is basically a liberal echo chamber. Because anytime anything interesting is posted, thousands of liberals brigade into the sub reddit and shit up the comments. Now imagine you wanted a board to talk about Pro-Life stuff, or to talk about Libertarian politics. If you were willing to pay for the site, shouldn't you be allowed to moderate the comments so that pro-abortion assholes and nazis don't continuously degrade the value proposition of your forums?

            I think that use case is valid, and so it is worthwhile to allow site owners to moderate however they see fit- even if that means being mendacious and petty pricks who claim free expression while totally shilling for one political party.

          2. ""market pressure" may force that "flavor" of S230-style behavior out of the ones who'd rather censor."

            By the way, I think you are right here. The problem is that humans tend to be impatient. I regularly refer to Blockbuster during the 90s. They essentially had the entire secondary movie market (video rentals) by the balls by the early 90s. Their control of the market was so total, that film makers were starting to alter the content of their movies to ensure that Blockbuster stocked their movie. Known as the "Blockbuster Cut", several movies removed certain scenes that violated BB's family ideals. There were many calls in the mid to late 90s to get Blockbuster broken up, because their near monopoly was such a threat to popular culture. But within a decade, Blockbuster was destroyed by Netflix. And as we are seeing now, Netflix is being destroyed by dozens of other streaming sites.

            Twitter and Facebook started turning into censorious shitbags circa 2016- right around the time the Right perfected using social media to their benefit. And here we are 6 years later, and several alternatives are rising to the forefront. The best thing we can do- if we are interested in liberty- is to make it as easy as possible for market entrants to exist- not regulating the industry more.

    2. The problem is the vagueness of the contract clauses and the unconscionable type of clauses. These would be stricken on other industries.

      1. Jesse- There is nothing vague about, "I can moderate any content you post here, and remove content that I find objectionable." No company ever has created TOS that said "We will be content neutral in our moderation". At most you will find narrow cases where the company did enough to acknowledge that it accepted certain content and then suddenly decided otherwise. But that is going to carry violations of warning periods, not any sort of ruling that requires the company to stay in business with the customer for some long period.

        There is no silver bullet here. The private sector is trying to solve this problem through competitive destruction, and that is PRECISELY why the big tech companies are all suddenly down with rewriting section 230. Because they are now vulnerable to other companies getting in their shit.

        1. First none of the contracts use those words.

          Second they advertise themselves as free speech centers where anybody can post.

          Youre just wrong here overt. Of that wa show they advertised especially from a political standpoint they wouldn't have the customers they have. They be as good as a Christian messaging service in terms of employers.

          You have also missed where many of nownbanned entities paid for promotion and were even promoted by the company for engagements. Then simply kicked off after the fact despite no change in behavior or posting styles from the person.

          Youre literally defending corporatism having extreme power over a customer base here who can change and modify their terms on a whim with zero consistency.

          If you were an apartment company that chose to pick and choose violations for which a tenant could be removed, you'd have lawsuits constantly about unfair evictions. Full stop.

          Youre defending terrible practices.

          Some of the people kicked off grew their customer base for decades based on a set of contractual terms that were simply changed at whim and they lost their customers. Those who followed them.

          Youre defending terrible behaviors.

          1. I was going to repost from Twitter's own about page where they called themselves the 'public square' and talk about freedom of speech, but apparently they read my posts and they have changed it in the last 6 weeks.

            Now they start with:

            "OUR PURPOSE

            We serve the public conversation.
            It matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk."

            Then they get into 'safety' and 'credible information'.

            No wonder Musk is trolling them.

          2. "First none of the contracts use those words."

            Of course they don't. They are written by lawyers, whose job is to ensure that the company retains the maximum leeway to moderate in terms that they desire. I have signed off on dozens of iterations of ToS in the past and this is standard operating procedure- not just to be a liberal shithead, but because otherwise you are constantly dealing with entitled assholes.

            "Second they advertise themselves as free speech centers where anybody can post."

            While this has a little more traction, you need to understand that advertising is not the same as contract law. And courts have looooong given deference to businesses here (and for good reason).

            Did you know restaurants are allowed to boast that they have "The Best Pizza in Town" even if they don't have the best pizza in town? Because it is a subjective assessment. Likewise, since "being a place for free speech" never means "Post anything including threats and porn", courts will accept that it is subjective.

            "You have also missed where many of nownbanned entities paid for promotion and were even promoted by the company for engagements."

            I have not missed that. I specifically called out that in some limited cases, the particulars of the specific grievance might bring some remedy. But the remedy is never going to be "You must monetize Praeger in perpetuity". It will be something like "You owe him 3 months notice" or whatever.

            This isn't some bizarre tech company behavior. It happens all the time. Remember when Disney killed off Jenifer Lopez from Lost because she and some other actress were caught drunk driving in Hawaii? They made disney look bad and the contract was terminated. And I have worked with fuckers who promise you the moon and then change their tune at the last minute, and you have to be EXTREMELY careful to get damages and penalties written into the contract to avoid that- this stuff isn't in ToS.

            "Youre literally defending corporatism having extreme power over a customer base here who can change and modify their terms on a whim with zero consistency."

            I am not defending corporatism. In fact, I have repeatedly implored people to stop being distracted by Section 230 and instead dealing with the fascist trend of DNC operatives taking command of major tech companies. This is a Very Bad Thing (TM). And trying to rewrite 230 will make it worse.

            "If you were an apartment company that chose to pick and choose violations for which a tenant could be removed, you'd have lawsuits constantly about unfair evictions."

            In fact, this is not true. If you discriminate based on a "protected status" you absolutely can get in trouble. But if it is, "I don't like you", then you are in the clear. I kicked a tenant out of a house because I didn't like him. He was month to month, and as long as I fulfilled my lease obligations, he had no claim on my property. If I did it because (say) he was Asian or a man, or some other protected attribute, the story would be different.

            And it is important to note that such rules are very specific to housing and employment because of Anti-Discrimination laws that interfere with free association. Most of those laws do not consider political affiliation to be a protected status.

            "Youre defending terrible practices."

            No I am not. I think these companies should be condemned roundly for what they did. People should abandon them in droves for the hypocritical shitbags that they are. That doesn't necessarily make their conduct illegal, and (surprise) just because people do things I don't like, I don't believe we should be coercing them with the threat of government punishment.

          3. There are also legitimate issues with property ownership and defamation involved.

            If someone sends child or illicitly attained porn to another person and that second person, who had no part in producing it or even viewing it, distributes it and then claims it violates their own TOS and deletes it, there are plenty of people, even relatively true libertarians, that sure as fuck would hunt that distributor down. The distribution and destruction would/could rightfully constitute a crime. I disagree with the notion that they should be hunted down as a matter of criminal statute, but there's an entire branch of law dedicated to such matters that S230 unilaterally rules out.

      2. To put it another way, if you say that this is about enforcing contracts, then you have already made this a problem without legal remedy.

        Remedying contract violations comes down to 1) did they breach the contract and 2) what were the damages. Even if you could argue for 1 (which is not as likely as I noted above) what are the damages? In the case of certain business relationships (like demonetizing You Tube Channels), you might be able to claim some small damages, but it isn't going to be long term. The Terms of Service are like at will work. At any time, a party can say "Fuck this, I'm out" and terminate the relationship- and a court might deem some sort of warning period at maximum. No ToS when reviewed by the courts is going to end up with some formulation like, "No google, you are obligated to monetize Praegar in perpetuity." If google had created its ToS in such a way that could happen, its lawyers would have been skinned alive.

        1. So an author using his Twitter account to let customers know of his new books has no damages when kicked off the platform he was giving money to and utilizing to grow a customer base? Same with political entities. The same thing.

          The agreement they made with these companies is they could speak freely and develop customers. In the case of YouTube it included splitting revenues. They grew their business under those terms. Then on a whim their own customer bases were cut off from them with no recompensation.

          I can't stress how badly that behavior is in a free world. It allows a company to be able to threaten established content owners who refuse to push or do things the company wants them to. It is a terrible ideal.

          1. "So an author using his Twitter account to let customers know of his new books has no damages when kicked off the platform he was giving money to and utilizing to grow a customer base? Same with political entities. The same thing."

            Declining to provide you service- even a very lucrative one- is not the same as damages. Let's say I agree to mow your lawn every day for free. You enjoy life for a year, and then one day, I tell you I'm not going to do it any more. Now your grass is going to overgrow, and you are going to have to buy a lawnmower or pay someone to do it for you. Those new expenses aren't damages. And they aren't my fault.

            My current company has bureaucratic red tape to ensure that we don't end up in exactly this position. We are required to have "Diverse Suppliers" for all of our services. That means never having a substantial amount of our revenue dependent on a single source.

            And by way, I highly recommend you go read some of the prospectuses of companies that are heavily dependent on Facebook, Google Ads, or other dominant platforms. They call this dependency on other company's technology platforms as a HUGE risk to their portfolio. One I remember in particular was Zynga (?)- the mobile gaming company. They were constantly under threat of Apple Store and Google Play disallowing their business models, and it consistently negatively effected their stock price.

            "I can't stress how badly that behavior is in a free world."

            Yes it is brazen and shitty. There are several business partners who permanently lost my business and friendship precisely because they let their personal hangups become a liability in our business relationship. And the way to control it is by making it easier for customers to punish unreliable platforms by allowing the creation of as many alternatives as possible.

            * Focus on investigating illegal market collusion (such as the simultaneous banning of certain figures).
            * Focus on limiting the collusion of government and corporations.
            * Continue to advocate for freedom of expression on public platforms.
            * Resist every effort to get the Government to step in and "help"

        2. Let's go to a tangential argument.

          TurboTax opens itself up to being able to be used by anyone. Many rely on its history of tax filings for future filings. On their ToS they put in a clause as you believe is allowable that they can boot someone off at any time. Person X says something bad, they get booted off with no warning and no access to prior tax returns completed with the tool. They get audited next year and TurboTax has deleted all prior records.

          In your view that would be fine but causes a strict harm to someone. Oh well they should have saved off prior returns. But a harm was caused by a whim of a company for no reason due to a vague clause.

          1. "In your view that would be fine but causes a strict harm to someone."

            I have dealt with the wind down of several services (Jump Cut, Yahoo 360) and in both cases we were not legally obligated to preserve customer content, but we DID feel a moral obligation. We gave a generous waiting period for people to reclaim their content before it was deleted.

            I think it wrong and shitty if TurboTax suddenly made it impossible to get your data, and it is possible that you had a legal claim to get them to give it to you.

            But your analogy isn't about previous data. Under your examples with Google et al, you'd say "Turbo Tax must continue to file your taxes every year for Overt, because he has become dependent on them, integrated his business system with them, and would have to find a new way to do business."

            I don't think that is reasonable. I'll agree that you own your existing data and should get it back, but Turbo Tax is not obligated to continue storing the data into the future, or providing you additional services.

        3. To put it another way, if you say that this is about enforcing contracts, then you have already made this a problem without legal remedy.

          Sure. 6000 yrs. of human history and no way to resolve contract disputes until 1997 when S230 protected Social Media from the means by which contract disputes have been resolved for 6000 yrs.

          Is it a permanent disability from self-abuse that makes you stupid or is it a temporary effect of some sort of drug that could wear off?

          1. I have yet to see an example of where Section 230 allowed a company out of some sort of contractual dispute. Someone posted a link many moons ago, and when I read through the actual ruling, it turned out that two different claims were being made and the contractual one was not dismissed due to section 230, but because the plaintiff could not demonstrate damages. But please, if you have an actual example, I'd be happy to review it.

            That said, you are a dumbass if you really think that the government has no place clarifying "6000 years of human history". It does so all the time- to limit confusion, to short circuit long legal battles, or to clarify its intent when new technology introduces grey areas or confusion.

  27. "...I get that you don't like these tech companies censoring people- I don't either. But at the end of the day, either you are talking about giving the government the ability to dictate the terms of contracts ("Your TOS must include a clause guaranteeing content-neutral moderation except for these types of content that the government deems bad content..."- which is 10000x worse) or you are going to have to accept that these private companies are allowed this latitude..."

    Exactly the point: The argument for forcing the companies to publish certain views is an argument for further government control of those companies.

    1. Exactly the point: The argument for forcing the companies to publish certain views is an argument for further government control of those companies.

      I still don't really understand what the problem with limiting S230 protections strictly to platforms won't work. Don't block anything that isn't itself a crime (child porn, stolen financial information, etc) or using the platform to conspire to commit an actual crime.

      Perhaps this is a foolishly naive view.

      1. The problem with limiting S230 protections to platforms is degeneracy with Title II. That said, I still don't really understand the legal necessity to distinguish platforms to begin with. It's not like courts couldn't convict CEOs or managers without punishing owners/shareholders before Title II.

  28. YouTube recommendations are essentially like NetFlix recommendations or Prime recommendations: Based on your past history of viewing, we recommend these similar videos.

    In fifteen years of watching YouTube videos, not once have I seen any ISIS recruitment video. But I've been inundated with Dennis Prager videos whining that YouTube is being mean to Dennis Prager. Who this girl that got recruited wasn't just some rando that fell into a trap, she was already primed for recruitment. She was already in that bubble.

    These are NOT "recommendations" from a human being, in the sense that someone is recommending she join ISIS. These are rather "based on your past viewing habits of watching X videos, here's another X video you might like". It's coming from a pretty brainless algorithm.

    1. Whether it is a brainless algorithm or not is immaterial. The question is whether Google's "recommendation" can be treated as an endorsement.

      1. No it is material. There is a difference between an algorithm that takes a best guess at the content you are looking for (essentially a type of search engine), and an algorithm intentionally designed to steer you towards specific content. It's the difference between publishing the results from a reader survey on which books the readers recommend people read and publishing a list of books that an editor recommends you read. The former is not an endorsement of content in the way the latter is in both situations.

        1. I just did a google search for “youtube tweaks algorithms” and got scores of results, some recent, some several years old. Youtube has been tweaking their videos for years. It is not user generated.

          I change my IP every night. I have a new IP address every day. I also use “private” on all of my browsers so that no cookies are saved when I exit the browser. I use several different browsers that have ad and script blocks. No matter how many times I go to Youtube, the same videos are promoted: the Somewhere over the Rainbow - Israel "IZ" Kamakawiwoʻole guy from the Hawaiian islands (1.2 Billion views), the Tiny Baby Stoat reaction (28 Million views), the Admiral McRaven Leaves the Audience SPEECHLESS | One of the Best Motivational Speeches (28 M views), and others.

          It is not solely user generated. I hope Gonzalez prevails. Youtube needs to be tweaked by SCOTUS

          1. ISPs slap identifying markers on all of your outgoing traffic and there is no way around it.
            Techdirt made a stink about it 10 or so years ago, but everybody got over it pretty quickly.

        2. No it is material.

          Arguably, the core.

          Just saying "It's an algorithm." is a thought-terminating meme. It's like saying, "They didn't help the murderer kill anyone. They just instructed them how. Instructing someone how to kill someone else is not a crime." Uh, yes it is, or can be, on a case by case basis. "They used an algorithm, therefore, innocent." is about as dumb as it gets.

          1. Didn't the FBI just get beaten down in court for being the planners and the instructors of a crime?

      2. Well, we know what Google's lack of recommendation is.

        1. Hunter Biden who? We never heard of the guy

      3. As Illocust and Yatusabes say, the algorithm is important, because google has been updating and editing, refining their algorithms steadily. Beyond this, there is also a staff of people who check, not every article, link or video 'curated,' recommended, banned, or simply buried. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, the check won't occur until after a complaint about unfair action on the part of the platform is registered, and amplified.

    2. You . . . You still haven't read the article?

    3. I'm not sure how the algorithms work, but Amazon Prime keeps sending me book recommendations that have nothing to do with the books I've purchased, most of which are historical fiction or military history non fiction. So why would I be interested in a book about the coming of age story of a wear Bronx teen trans girl? I have to wonder sometimes what their algorithms are thinking.

    4. Lol Netflix and prime most definitely do not base their recs on my history. Netflix would not stop advertising woke bullshit to me, so I canceled my service. Not sure what about only watching reruns of 80s and 90s sitcoms plus stranger things made them think I was exclusively interested in non stop pride, blm and latinksy programming.
      Canceled Hulu and sling for the same reason.
      All of the last two years, prime did the same. If I didn't already have a prime membership, I would have axed them too. Thank god they stopped earlier this year.

  29. >>Wynn Bruce

    extreme warmist.

    1. Uh, ot now. He's dead.

      1. Not now, that is.

  30. The first privately-funded trip to the International Space Station started its return trip yesterday.

    Knew they couldn't hack it.

    1. The Russians kicked them out.

    2. It has to be awkward on the ISS right now.

      1. Only if they are all normie NPCs

  31. Gonzalez's circumstances are tragic, but his claim is convoluted and patently illogical.

    I'm a little surprised Gonzalez didn't sue Google under Paris law, where section 230 doesn't apply.

    1. I'm curious how long until companies just start leaving Europe. I don't know enough about this case to comment either way (though the high level sounds questionable to me). The EU is super fond of sweeping in at unknown times and taking huge fines out of companies on somewhat arbitrary lines. It's a form of tax collection as much as rule making.

      1. I sincerely believe that these companies merely see this as a cost of doing business in Europe.

        1. Even more to the point, how hard would it be for a scrappy startup like, paler or some such thing that's super-duper pro trump and full of evil righty bottom feeders to navigate the halls of the EU when there's a $400,000,000,000,000,000,000 fine lurking around the corner? Exactly.

          A fine a day keeps the competitors away.

          1. Oh, for sure. That's what regulation does. The EU is capricious enough though that at some point the cost of doing business outweighs the benefits.
            They EU says they don't care if large companies leave because then they'll get cool local businesses to take their place. Considering the large lack of dynamism in EU businesses I am unsure that they are right.

            I read this book recently called Eurotrash, and at least one section covered this lack of dynamism in European business. The book was a lot more stat heavy and a lot less of a hit piece than the name had implied to me. Was not a bad quick read.

          2. Also, as an unrelated comment to my other post, a lot of this stuff I'm pretty absolutist on the government not being involved. I honestly don't think it is a solution to the problem at hand, and I think the problems are overblown to start with anyway. Twitter matters less than people believe. This is a thing where a small portion of the entire country uses it, but a huge portion of those who write and speak publicly do. Twitter is a bubble for journalists and politicians. It's the internet version of the entire mid-Atlantic region.

            I was very sympathetic though to Parler when they were removed from AWS. I think that is a very big concern, and more energy should have been put towards rejecting that. It seems to have been largely forgotten but that was a real hill to die on moment and people too quickly moved to the next outrage.

            1. This is why I continue to say we should be focusing on investigating collusion here. AWS deplatformed one of its biggest customer's (twitter) competitors. That is actionable, or at least worth publicizing wide and far.

              This should be the first act of a new administration- identify just how much collusion between the government and big tech is actually going on here.

              1. Perhaps, though I don't know. The problem remains even if no collusion is shown, and I think it's entirely believable that a certain anti-free speech belief system is so wide spread that actors at each company perform independently of one another.

                I think we're in luck that people at large do seem to react negatively to these things though. That gives me some hope.

                1. While I agree with you, Musk and Thiel among others demonstrate that this isn't universal. That sort of market attracts investment, absent illegal collusion.

      2. It's theatre. The multinationals and the EU are in bed with each other.

  32. I have a question for both supporters and opponents of section 230.

    What would the internet world look like if there was no Communications Decency Act?

    1. One of my favorite descriptions of the internet from a pre-S230 era:
      "Nothing but horse porn and stock quotes."

      1. Well, the internet now is nothing but pony porn and crypto arguments, so the more things change the more they stay the same.

        1. Hmm... as I understand it, the primary complaint about the internet now is it's full of sexual exploitation of wimmen-folk and Ivermectin pushers.

          1. Perhaps some sort of "internet decency" act can finally make the internet "decent" again.

            MIDA hats for everyone.

            1. More like MIDOL amirite?

          2. Maybe this said something more about where I hang out.

    2. As a real answer though, my gut is that removing it would probably lead to motivated deletion of more content with cover provided by the fact that companies would be able to say they fear legal repercussions for allowing the content to remain on the website.

      1. They sure do remove a lot of stuff when they don't fear legal repercussions.

  33. LOL....Twitter acquired by Elon Musk.

    Goodbye wokesters. Musk destroyed his empathy genes at birth. You'll have fun when he takes over. Laughing hysterically at that thought.

    What will you do when Trump is allowed back to tweet to his heart's content?

    1. I still think the powers will shut this down somehow.

      Unless they've spent the last week deleting every piece of shadowban code.

  34. Wynn Bruce, a climate activist who set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, has died.

    Putting Carbon in the air, making his martyrdom all for naught.

  35. The claim that Youtube is an ISIS platform may have come at an opportune time, with a former prez and several Hice members under suspicion of sedition. A swelling din seeks to give the impression that rights, especially Second Amendment rights (not no-knock killer cops) are the Assassins of Youth. These attacks on the Bill of Rights spew from the NYT, WAPO, Mommie Jones and the looter press in general, and maybe even Youtube. So maybe the looter press can join Marjorie Greene Teeth and Orange Hitler on the "disloyal" whipping-post. It would provide entertainment.

    1. “Marjorie Greene Teeth”

      You’re in no position to make fun of people for their appearance.

      https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/who-is-hank-phillips/

      1. Portrait of an incel.

  36. Prestige Lakeside Habitat Serenity Shores is a prelaunch upcoming residential project in the preferred locations of Whitefield, East Bangalore.

  37. Prestige Park Grove Whitefield is an approaching novel private region organized amidst every metropolitan convenience by an eminent land goliath in South India - Prestige Group. This ultra-luxury project is conveniently envisioned for the people who ponder euphoria above everything. It illuminates the shocking best creation in Prestige Group's quality region.

  38. Prestige Park Grove Whitefield is an approaching novel private region organized amidst every metropolitan convenience by an eminent land goliath in South India - Prestige Group.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.