2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Bateshorn 9853]

3 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

I'm going to guess that Trump won't be in a continuing resolution signing kind of mood at any point between now and December 11.  What happens then?  Will everything be shut down until January 20-somethingth? 

The GOP could always override his veto.  Not sure they would, but technically the option exists. No pocket VETO at the federal level.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Bateshorn

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

14 hours ago, youdunnf'dup said:

The most important person in the Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen. And probably will be for the next decade +

 

 

Does he have the distinction of being the only one to lose the popular vote twice?

 

[Anastasis 23329]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yep.  Sounded wrong, so I went with it.  lulz

Mom was an English prof and I no longer have her to bounce things off . . . of?

I bounced my thing off your mom a time or two. 

 

[Firemans4Horn 17773]

 

[Sawbonz 27301]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yep.  Sounded wrong, so I went with it.  lulz

Mom was an English prof and I no longer have her to bounce things off . . . of?

I’m sorry about your mom. I blame sports announcers for that particular hypercorrection’s becoming so common

[Foosters 17688]

37 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

I’ve been seeing the note that GHWB left for Clinton making it’s rounds on social media.  In contrast, I imagine the note that Trump leaves will be something like this:

He thinks the Russian pissers did this?

[washparkhorn 9931]

12 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

[elfenix 34161]

Trump loses, Brady gets his ass handed to him on a plate, pretty good week

[ChiTownDoc 21072]

John Oliver killing it.  Lol

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

LinkedIn...so much for networking and jobs.

[washparkhorn 9931]

[Prepuce of Doom 20954]

 

[closetohumping 17354]

apparently all of my conservative buddies are headed to something called parler

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

apparently all of my conservative buddies are headed to something called parler

Yep. Just was talking about that with some friends. Probably Russian owned haha.

[washparkhorn 9931]

 

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

 parler

twitter for the checked out

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

LinkedIn...so much for networking and jobs.

 

5 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

LinkedIn...so much for networking and jobs.

saw someone post something like "my grandfather, 94 years old, is voting in his first election, proudly casting his vote for Joe Biden," and showing the sort of uplifting picture of the old man doing his civic duty.

it is a touch beyond what i would do on linkedin because of the mention of a party preference in there, but certainly was very innocuous positive bullshit like you see on linkedin in 1000 different verities any day.

turns out trumptards did not view it as innocuous and followed it with 100s of comments of "i hope he knows the marxist future blah blah blah." triggered might be an understatement.  its like bucky barnes when he hears those preprogrammed words, these people are incapable of anything other than recite their fearmongering ussr takeover garbage.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

apparently all of my conservative buddies are headed to something called parler

 

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Yep. Just was talking about that with some friends. Probably Russian owned haha.

 

Just now, washparkhorn said:

 

twitter for the checked out

it might be for the best.  a sort of quarantine where they can circulate inane beliefs but keep it away from someone that isn't that far down the road yet.

[Tuco 5076]

2 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

These reports are changing daily. Yesterday Kushner was the one asking him to consider conceding the race. 

Today it’s Meadows and Melania. 

Tomorrow it will be Ivanka. 

I could see it playing out this way:

Kushner and Melanie try to get Trump to concede.  Donald gets pissed. Don Jr. tells dad that to keep pushing and...sniff...and the people will follow up.  Eric agrees, although he may have just been asking for more juice; even he's not sure. Kush realizes he is between Donald and the most idiotic course of action, with Jr and Eric egging him on.  That's not a good place to be.  Kush must consider the will of the American people and the hierarchy of Donald's will.   More rallies! More rallies for everyone!  Melanie chases her third xanax with a lovely single malt  and diet. 

[washparkhorn 9931]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

saw someone post something like "my grandfather, 94 years old, is voting in his first election, proudly casting his vote for Joe Biden," and showing the sort of uplifting picture of the old man doing his civic duty.

it is a touch beyond what i would do on linkedin because of the mention of a party preference in there, but certainly was very innocuous positive bullshit like you see on linkedin in 1000 different verities any day.

turns out trumptards did not view it as innocuous and followed it with 100s of comments of "i hope he knows the marxist future blah blah blah." triggered might be an understatement.  its like bucky barnes when he hears those preprogrammed words, these people are incapable of anything other than recite their fearmongering ussr takeover garbage.

why we can't have nice things. RIP LinkedIn - yuck

[closetohumping 17354]

I don't see any benefit in getting political on LI

[ChiTownDoc 21072]

16 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

LinkedIn...so much for networking and jobs.

This shit is infuriating.  Mainly because I have to do LinkedIn for work.  I don’t do fb or any other social media so that’s the only place these assholes can spam me w this garbage.  

[atomheartbevo 89304]

1 hour ago, Saint Tacky said:

I was freelancing as a producer for ABC News on Election Day 1992. I was assigned to Ann Compton and Brint Hume, and was in the Westin Galleria on election night. About 12 of us were let into the hotel room immediately after the concession call and before the President went down to the ballroom. Didn't vote for him. Didn't care for his politics, but damn he had class. and his wife was a very kind lady. They were the only two people in the room maintaining their composure, smiling, and managing to joke about it. Everyone else was a mess. But they were political animals and they understood the stakes and this was bigger than them. 

So how was Compton in the sack?

[Gourmand 7774]

 
twitter for the checked out

grindr for the grifted

[TtomTerrific 200]

In the interest of the "water finding its own level" type of physics, wouldn't this type of service - a social media company - that isn't going to have all of their subscribers information sharing or reading or considering (even to and with their friends) shut down be kind of the obvious next step?

Of course they are not as established  or functional or powerful as Twitter (or Facebook), but they are also orders magnitude more advanced in technologies and in subscribers/members than were Twitter or Facebook this point in their life cycle.

I have an account there, but I really don't use it that much because I'm pretty illiterate as it comes to the functiality of the platforms themselves.   I still don't understand what a hashtag is for as opposed to and @....never have understood why "retweets"  are necessary  and I sure as fuck can never follow along when someone posts a Twitter converstation here and usually need to have it translated.  I never used Twitter before not using Twitter was cool. 

Same with that Parler, but Parler is assuming everyone knows Twitter-ese and then makes subtle, proprietary changes to that.....so....fuck it all together.

There are PLENTY of left wing users there and I've never seen any one of them "banned/blocked/suspended" for expressing politcal thought.  And I am SURE that no major news publication's story would be "locked" there.....AT ALL

It's not just to read the news that is being "redacted" from the other platforms, but it is to have some "instant/direct messages" with your cirle of contacts.

They are not only controlling which news you are permitted to read, which things from the President you are allowed to read or watch, but also what you are allowed to SAY...even among your friends.    The ACLU I grew up with would light its hair of fire if this were to happen somehow before these social media giants existed..... 

If anyone of the resident attoreneys here can please provide a non-hysterical explanation as to how you reconcile this with what you have been practicing as our laws of the land, please do and please understand that this is not an attack upon you, personally nor otherwise.  I would love for GatorUbet or Brisket...or really ol' Kyrie if he's still around here, to explain this.

I'm not posting (asking) as some "gotchya" thing...I am legit curious because it's so dramatically opposite of what I am sure that y'all hold dear in what are Rights of Americans (I'll stop here and not even go again into the rest of the Bill of Rights under attack, just start with ol' number one here)

On the surface this seems so outrageous that for the previous champions of "free speech, press, assembly"...all of it, who I have read over the years here, to me would be the first in line to fight this in court somehow -  beside themselves over this.  Add to that the anti-trust implicaitons, their HUGE influence upon our public policy makers and educators AND the ACTUAL top 1% of 1% in net wealth in this country taking a tax break while they do it....Jesus Christ!.....I get that currently it helps "your guy"  but that's a temporary arrangement at best. 

Why aren't you furious about this? 

 

"Make them pay taxes" is a funny thing to say....Jack became a trillionaire or whatever (his market cap is) due specifically TO Section 230 re-directing taxes and any money he would need to lay out annually in legal fees straight to his bottom line.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by TtomTerrific

[washparkhorn 9931]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So how was Compton in the sack?

all I see is potato

[TexArcher 37414]

32 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

apparently all of my conservative buddies are headed to something called parler

Sounds like a good way for the FBI to keep tabs on all of their crazy asses.

[Captainant 27250]

Ttom, you wrote a whole novel but didn't seem to get to the point lol. Twitter and Facebook aren't public entities, they have no obligation to host content that they don't want to and can moderate accordingly. They aren't stopping you from saying or hearing an idea, they're just not letting their platform be the messenger. 

I'm all for parler and 8kun and all the fringe sites spinning up, because you have a right to speech and assembly. Some assembly may be required, though. 

Same thing for the birth of shaggy and later on, surly. They didn't like the old mods, so rather than bitch and moan about MUH FIRST AMENDMENT, they made their own board. With blackjack and hookers. 

Moderation is not censorship. Moderation is "you can't say that here", censorship is "you can't say that ANYWHERE'

Edited November 9, 2020 by Captainant

[Bama Chick 28596]

Four years ago

Two days after Election Day.

One day after the election was called - not by courts or congress - by the media.

[conVINCEd 21468]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ttom, you wrote a whole novel but didn't seem to get to the point lol. Twitter and Facebook aren't public entities, they have no obligation to host content that they don't want to and can moderate accordingly. They aren't stopping you from saying or hearing an idea, they're just not letting their platform be the messenger. 

I'm all for parler and 8kun and all the fringe sites spinning up, because you have a right to speech and assembly. Some assembly may be required, though. 

Same thing for the birth of shaggy and later on, surly. They didn't like the old mods, so rather than bitch and moan about MUH FIRST AMENDMENT, they made their own board. With blackjack and hookers. 

Moderation is not censorship. Moderation is "you can't say that here", censorship is "you can't say that ANYWHERE'

Katie was a little too straight-laced for our fan base.

[Scheiss Meister 8390]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Moderation is not censorship. Moderation is "you can't say that here", censorship is "you can't say that ANYWHERE'

I am constantly amazed at how many do not understand this simple concept.

[TtomTerrific 200]

ok....but that's not true...they are paying fewer taxes and immune from law suit because, under 203 they are considered public utlity as long as they are not pushing an agenda.   Fox News and the New York Times don't have this advantage.  You can chose not to read them as well.  That's the point   You can't take this special designation as an "exempt entitiy" addiding untold trillions if not hundreds of billions to your bottom line BECAUSE you are a non-editorial "utlity"....at least under 230....but then violate the fuck out of the one rule that there is that affords you those benefits.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by TtomTerrific

[TtomTerrific 200]

Four years ago

Two days after Election Day.

One day after the election was called - not by courts or congress - by the media.
 

ok...you too , please madam....this is NOT a personal attack....this is a politcal board for political disourse...
 
that photo was taken while the guy on the left was having the CIA and FBI spy on the guy on the right.   That photo might have been taken on the day the guy on the left was recorded mentioning the "Logan Act" as a reason to justify a FISA warrant for the purposes of listening into the Trump towers.

[Captainant 27250]

3 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

ok....but that's not true...they are paying fewer taxes and immune from law suit because, under 203 they are considered public utlity as long as they are not pushing an agenda.   Fox News and the New York Times don't have this advantage.  You can chose not to read them as well.  That's the point   You can't take this special designation as an "exempt entitiy" addiding untold trillions if not hundreds of billions to your bottom line BECAUSE you are a non-editorial "utlity"....at least under 230....but then violate the fuck out of the one rule that there is that affords you those benefits.

 

That's... Not remotely close to how section 230 applies, and it imparts no tax benefits lol. It's a partial protection against copyright liability, that's it. Surly happens to be a beneficiary as well. 

You should actually read the source documents you're ranting about because you're showing your red ass

[TexasEd 8058]

43 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

why we can't have nice things. RIP LinkedIn - yuck

I did not see any of that from my linked in network.  

[closetohumping 17354]

18 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I am constantly amazed at how many do not understand this simple concept.

And smart educated people.  That's the crazy part.

[Biff Tannen 45439]

Twitter response on the press secretary’s feed:

You'd think WW3 just ended. I went to a coffee shop and people were playing music and dancing. There was a band playing in someones front yard in my neighborhood. I've never seen anything like this. Sort of shows how incredibly out of touch the left is with the rest of he country

[Tuco 5076]

I think Parler is awesome.  Get all the fucking Trumpsters on one site.  Let them swap their fucking casserole recipes and talk about how great segregation was..  Give them two weeks with themselves and their thoughts, and they'll tear themselves to pieces.  They are the aggrieved.  They are the victims.  Once they are separated from their current manufactured oppressor, they will surely create a new one.  

[TtomTerrific 200]

That's... Not remotely close to how section 230 applies, and it imparts no tax benefits lol. It's a partial protection against copyright liability, that's it. Surly happens to be a beneficiary as well. 
You should actually read the source documents you're ranting about because you're showing your red ass

Well. I’m not armed with the precise tax advantages in the tax code that is an absolute tax strategy/dodge/shelter that those who operate under its protections use, as a matter of course / some filing as a “utility” variant that is real dollars not going into the treasury.


It was brought up in one the few times that Zuckerberg, Pinchai..and the onetime Jack didn’t ignore them requesting that he show up too. Not sure if Cook needs to be there or if Apple in anyway benefits from this.

But it was brought up, the tax advantages that they enjoy as per filing with this designation. It was sba Democrat Congressman with the charts and line of questioning, with their previous earnings reports as part of his slide show.

The Republicans who cared were pissed at the censorship or otherwise providers of content part, the Democrats who cared were pissed about anti-trust and specifically the “top 1 percent of one percent with another tax break” beef.

Memorable in its bi-partisanship in that way.

Also bu-partisan were the majority of committee members clearly on the dole from this crew who we’re interrupting and carrying their eatery for them.

Jim Jordan chief among them.

Then it came out that he’s been taking campaign contributions from Google quite a bit.

I would quickly look up the particular tax breaks they enjoy using this “public utility” variant designation along with the real dollars amount of each from that hearing if I have a few hours to kill as , shockingly, anything about those hearings is not something a quick Google search provides.

If you are a lawyer and have more than search engine access to this information and care to help. It was the first hearing with the House to which I am referring.

The one Jack blew off altogether.

[TtomTerrific 200]

And , that immunity from libel suit that you do stipulate exists , that’s not a small thing.

[Gatorubet 30023]

Yeah, most of us think you post like a faggot so to us the term for you is more accurate, however you "identify"".

Nothing says winning an internet argument like good old fashioned high school homophobia.

[bluto 4861]

[Michael Knight 12853]

What's gonna take longer, calling the election or Trump conceding

[elfenix 34161]

What's gonna take longer, calling the election or Trump conceding

Where is "heat death of the universe" in this picture?

[bluto 4861]

Even Robert Jeffress is calling Biden as 46 a done deal. That one has to leave a mark.

[F250 28623]

30 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

Well. I’m not armed with the precise tax advantages in the tax code that is an absolute tax strategy/dodge/shelter that those who operate under its protections use, as a matter of course / some filing as a “utility” variant that is real dollars not going into the treasury.


It was brought up in one the few times that Zuckerberg, Pinchai..and the onetime Jack didn’t ignore them requesting that he show up too. Not sure if Cook needs to be there or if Apple in anyway benefits from this.

But it was brought up, the tax advantages that they enjoy as per filing with this designation. It was sba Democrat Congressman with the charts and line of questioning, with their previous earnings reports as part of his slide show.

The Republicans who cared were pissed at the censorship or otherwise providers of content part, the Democrats who cared were pissed about anti-trust and specifically the “top 1 percent of one percent with another tax break” beef.

Memorable in its bi-partisanship in that way.

Also bu-partisan were the majority of committee members clearly on the dole from this crew who we’re interrupting and carrying their eatery for them.

Jim Jordan chief among them.

Then it came out that he’s been taking campaign contributions from Google quite a bit.

I would quickly look up the particular tax breaks they enjoy using this “public utility” variant designation along with the real dollars amount of each from that hearing if I have a few hours to kill as , shockingly, anything about those hearings is not something a quick Google search provides.

If you are a lawyer and have more than search engine access to this information and care to help. It was the first hearing with the House to which I am referring.

The one Jack blew off altogether.

This is nonsensical rambling.

[Gatorubet 30023]

If anyone of the resident attoreneys here can please provide a non-hysterical explanation as to how you reconcile this with what you have been practicing as our laws of the land, please do and please understand that this is not an attack upon you, personally nor otherwise.  I would love for GatorUbet or Brisket...or really ol' Kyrie if he's still around here, to explain this.
I'm not posting (asking) as some "gotchya" thing...I am legit curious because it's so dramatically opposite of what I am sure that y'all hold dear in what are Rights of Americans (I'll stop here and not even go again into the rest of the Bill of Rights under attack, just start with ol' number one here)

The First Amendment’s Free Speech protection applies to Government restriction. You have no First Amendment right to say shit in a private context and be free from the consequences of that from a non-government actor. Nor do you have a right to say whatever you want on a private website and demand some equal right to say partisan shit.

The reason it looks unequal is because the GOP spews far more bat shit crazy false stuff than the left. Reality has a liberal bias.

Mostly, you need to know if it ain’t a government entity, and your blowback is not due to your race, color, religion, national origin, age or gender, the private sector is free to shit on you all it wants.

[TtomTerrific 200]

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The First Amendment’s Free Speech protection applies to Government restriction. You have no First Amendment right to say shit in a private context and be free from the consequences of that from a non-government actor. Nor do you have a right to say whatever you want on a private website and demand some equal right to say partisan shit.

The reason it looks unequal is because the GOP spews far more bat shit crazy false stuff than the left. Reality has a liberal bias.

Mostly, you need to know if it ain’t a government entity, and your blowback is not due to your race, color, religion, national origin, age or gender, the private sector is free to shit on you all it wants.

right...again....they are using this 230 to represent themselves as a public entity, there by exempting themselves from the other controls on private entities.  I say tax and law suit,  Ant up there says no tax advantage, which I don't agree with as I watched the House Committee hearings on this where they tax advantages were put up on screen.  But, I can't "google it" so, for right now, just for the one "advantage" thay they enjoy because they designate themselves under this 230 designation as a 'public utility'.....that's the entire issue.

 

The post office can't be sued for what is in the mail they deliver, but the post office can't only deliver mail that they want you to read either. 

[elfenix 34161]

how about we read section 230 instead of making up a bunch of shit about it?

 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

    U.S. Code
    Notes

prev | next
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f) DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1) Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

for those who can't read good, here's the real operative part:

Quote

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52235]

You want a lawyer’s legal opinion you should probably pay them for it. But the least you could do is accept the free explanation you solicited without arguing back. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

I wanted a lawyer who posts here who is reasonable to explain why this isn’t enraging those same lawyers whom I’ve seen loudly opposing anything resembling this on these boards before.

Stating that these companies are “private entities and therefore free to do business as they see fit” ignores that they use this 230 exemption so as to not need to meet the restrictions and obligations of the other private entities, because they serve as a public utility.

Thank You for answering a question about the acceptable restrictions on speech by suggesting that I accept what I’m given and not argue about it.

These are questions. Legitimately. Not arguments.

Y’all are getting WAY to comfortable with letting other people know when they can and cannot speak or about what. That’s becoming clear.

Good evening