This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with our response to the latest bogus op-ed about Section 230:
When your job requires you to be a liar, that’s not a good look
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
And the streak remains unbroken, the only way to attack 230 is to lie about it.
I wish the liars in question would come up with some new material already though rather than the same long-debunks garbage, I mean when your arguments don’t have to be based upon reality then spice things up, go wild, not like it’ll make your arguments worse or anything.
‘230 causes cancer in babies!’
‘230 makes puppies bonk their noses on hard objects!’
‘230 is the reason you sometimes feel the need to sneeze but it refuses to come out and you just end up feeling uncomfortable and making a weird face!’
In second place, it’s an anonymous response to questions about whether it’s better when Trump appoints someone terrible to an important job, or when he appoints nobody at all:
That’s why Candeub was previously an acting director, which is another method favored by Trump. Appoint an acting-something, and no confirmations! All the win.
But appointing no one at all is less bad than appointing these utter fuckwits.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start with a response from sumgai to that same post about Trump’s appointment of a Section 230-hater to a top DOJ role:
Actually, since Senate confirmation is not necessary, Biden can replace him at will. The basic reason would be lack of desired qualifications, and the underlying threat would be “gross abuse of power in attempting to subvert a news media outlet’s 1A rights”, something that might carry a penalty heavier than simply no longer working in a government position. This threat should be enough to assure a quiet resignation, but sadly, at this point no one can be sure about such things.
Next, it’s :Lobo Santo summing up one of the key goals at play among those trying to change online content rules:
Let us think for a moment on last century’s media paradigm:
A first-class lane for content “streamed” in full-color to the home–cable tv
and a second-class lane for people to use to contact their equals and “betters”–telephone.
Now, contrast with the internet: Everybody has a voice.
Any citizen can speak out on any available platform and be seen by very nearly the entirely world. Or at least, a majority of our countrymen.
In this context, let us ask again, why would politicians (or those behind them) want to put an end to Section 230 for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
To quote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality: “To understand the object of an obscure plot, observe its consequences and ask who might have intended them.”
In my opinion, somebody is playing a long game in an attempt to return to the status quo of the few having the power to broadcast, and the many having only what little they are allowed.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous response to complaints about Silicon Valley censorship in the aforementioned anti-230 op-ed in USA Today:
I have just one question…
How did this screed get through the “independent thought” gatekeeping? The Lords of Silicon Valley have some explaining to do!
In second place, it’s Pixelation with a response to Trump’s “maga2020” password on his Twitter account:
He’ll change it to…
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with Eric wondering why the government is worried about another dumb password that compromised the security of Solarwinds:
I mean its just a “backdoor”, what’s the big deal?
Finally, it’s David with a response to another commenter telling the story of how they got a copyright claim on YouTube over a recording of insects outside their window:
Well, what do you expect when uploading a soundtrack from the beetles?
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon