- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why are so many people on here saying it is “bad politics” to go after social media?
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:09 am
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:09 am
There’s a reason biden and other dems pledged to revoke 230 as well, it polls well, whether you like it or not
If something polls 2:1 in support, why would it be politically harmful?
I am not arguing it is good policy, but when Americans by wide margins support social media regulation, it makes it tough to believe it is bad politics
If something polls 2:1 in support, why would it be politically harmful?
I am not arguing it is good policy, but when Americans by wide margins support social media regulation, it makes it tough to believe it is bad politics
7
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:10 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I am not arguing it is good policy
I am.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:12 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
There’s a reason biden and other dems pledged to revoke 230 as well, it polls well, whether you like it or not
I actually DISAGREE with revoking 230.
230 is absolutely fine.
It's treating things that clearly aren't covered under 230 as if they are that's the problem
230 tells us what a platform is. Only lawyers torture the language enough to claim it doesn't.
I like protecting platforms. They SHOULD be protected.
Behave like a platform. Be protected
This post was edited on 5/29/20 at 11:13 am
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:12 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It is good policy.
How can an entity claim to be a platform for free speech while simultaneously having the ability to pick and choose what is displayed and how it's displayed.
There is no argument that can be made for those 2 ideas to be blended.
How can an entity claim to be a platform for free speech while simultaneously having the ability to pick and choose what is displayed and how it's displayed.
There is no argument that can be made for those 2 ideas to be blended.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:13 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Social media IS bad politics.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:13 am to ShortyRob
quote:
230 is absolutely fine.
quote:
230 tells us what a platform is. Only lawyers torture the language enough to claim it doesn't.
Pick one
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:14 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
Social media IS bad politics.
Why?
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:15 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Because a lot people on the right have allowed themselves to be so browbeaten by the left for their entire lives that even after four years of TRUMP they still don't think they should fight back.
Others are just left wingers larping and concern trolling.
Others are just left wingers larping and concern trolling.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:17 am to Pecker
quote:
Pick one
Not necessary
The reality is, you could write "light includes wavelengths that humans can't see" and lawyers would still figure out how to argue that point for the next 5 years.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:17 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I am not arguing it is good policy, but when Americans by wide margins support social media regulation, it makes it tough to believe it is bad politics
Probably because of the messenger.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:18 am to ShortyRob
quote:
actually DISAGREE with revoking 230.
230 is absolutely fine.
It's treating things that clearly aren't covered under 230 as if they are that's the problem
230 tells us what a platform is. Only lawyers torture the language enough to claim it doesn't.
I like protecting platforms. They SHOULD be protected.
Behave like a platform. Be protected
This. fricking this.
People don't know what they're asking for by revoking 230.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:19 am to bmy
quote:Twitter doesn't only violate based on Trump
Probably because of the messenger.
And, no offense, but, your point isn't even valid re: Trump either.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:21 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I would just like to point out that the IRS targeted tea party movements and nothing happened of consequence except Lois Lerner got up on the cross about it. The targeting of conservatives has been systematic over the last 12 years. Big Tech is another front of that assault. Is it any wonder that the media mob is screaming about it. Perhaps the better question is what conservative laments ending the targeting of their ideology? The answer is, not a good one.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:22 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Only lawyers torture the language enough to claim it doesn't.
That's a polite way of calling them g-damned liars...
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:24 am to ShortyRob
I don't necessarily disagree with you about 230 tbh. I just favor user-patrolled community groups.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:27 am to bmy
Safe space SJWs, fact checkers, and OMB NPCs are not going to vote for Trump. His only issue is those principled conservatives and libertarians that think if we leave twitter alone the market will take care of them and don't care how many elections are lost in the meantime that will give Big Tech additional protections to further kneecap competitors. Conservatives need to fight a smarter game. We cannot restore free markets under speech tyranny. A principled stance against "regulation" at this discrete point in time will be a small battle won that will cost the war.
This post was edited on 5/29/20 at 11:30 am
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:29 am to therick711
quote:
principled conservatives and libertarians
quote:
don't care how many elections are lost in the meantime that will give them additional protections to further kneecap competitors.
Dying with honor.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:30 am to bmy
quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with you about 230 tbh. I just favor user-patrolled community groups.
Personally, I think the whole idea that this is related to Trump is a concoction anyway.
Twitter and Facebook have been headed this way for years. And, to be blunt, they're doing it at the behest of the left. Which honestly, is sad.
The left used to claim to value free flow of ideas and speech. It was pretty much an absolute for them.
I'm old enough to remember being conservative but not liking the "book burning" wing of the conservative movement. Old enough to remember looking upon the left as my allies on valuing free speech.
Today, the right has largely figured it out, and the left has COMPLETELY ABANDONED the idea.
I never moved.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:33 am to ShortyRob
It's much more because of how it went down. The perception is that he was personally offended by something Twitter did so he then immediately signs an execute order to change it.
Sorry, but I never want politics to be run in a way that because 1 person was offended, we change laws.
Sorry, but I never want politics to be run in a way that because 1 person was offended, we change laws.
Posted on 5/29/20 at 11:34 am to Jwho77
quote:
Dying with honor.
Yep. Plenty of them in the CNN reporter arrested thread. They claim they're respecting the Constitution by handing lighter fluid to those who would burn it.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News