This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about New York’s blatantly unconstitutional investigation into online platforms in the wake of the Buffalo shooting:
So, what the’re saying is…
This guy was able to leave a HUGE trail of information about his hate crimes… But now they want to demonize the same platforms where he left all this information instead of being thankful for the huge amount of information he was able to leave for law enforcement to follow.
Isn’t that basically cutting off your nose to spite your face?
You’ll never get rid of haters and trolls, but by pushing them into the darker parts of the internet, you’re reducing the effective methods of tracing their past actions should they become actual criminals rather than just trolls.
In second place, it’s another anonymous comment, this time in response to the tired old complaint about platforms and free speech:
If I tell people who enter my house that they can’t talk about something I don’t like, and someone talks about something I don’t like, I can kick them out, even if they’re unaware that I don’t like it. I’m not violating any of their rights by doing so.
Twitter can do the same in their house.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start with a comment from JMT in response to the claim that Section 230’s legitimacy is called into question by the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on it:
The fact that there’s never been a circuit split to trigger a Supreme Court appeal proves the strength of the S230.
Next, it’s Naughty Autie with a response to another tired old type of comment, about platforms versus publishers:
When I upload a story to AO3, I’m the publisher of that story, not AO3. Similarly, when someone uploads a video to YouTube, they’re the publisher of that video, not YouTube. Get it yet, or are you going to carry on down the fastlane of stupid?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Tribune with a comment about politicians who blame video games for mass shootings:
Former San Francisco politician Leland Yee made a career of claiming that videogames cause violence until he was arrested for running guns to the Philippines.
In second place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a response to our post suggesting that we should elect fewer stupid people:
Then how will Republicans win elections?
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from PaulT in response to another commenter pointing out that someone’s source was “a very, very out of context and misleading Project Veritas video”:
Wait, did I miss the time they had another type of video?
Finally, it’s Thad with one more comment about blaming video games for the Buffalo shooting:
I’ve played a lot of video games and generally when there are nazis in them they’re the bad guys.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon