This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Bloof with a response to someone making the plainly silly claim that Section 230 was created specifically to induce acts of censorship of conservatives by social media companies:
Section 230 became law in 1996. Facebook was founded 2004, Twitter in 2006, YouTube in 2005, Google in 1998, MySpace in 2003… Cox and Wyden sure thought ahead writing a law to silence conservatives using platforms that wouldn’t be founded for years!
In second place, it’s That One Guy with a response to the outrage about the White House’s mishandled efforts to flag disinformation on social media:
Funny how selective that outrage is…
The WH definitely seems to have botched this but I find it telling that apparently telling a platform ‘hey, this is misinformation’ and leaving it up to them to take it down or leave it up is considered a heinous violation of the first amendment but multiple proposed laws attempting to force platforms to moderate as the government demands is no big deal.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got two comments that racked up nearly-even insightful and funny votes. First, an anonymous comment responding to the assertion that “there is no first amendment protection for anyone to censor others”:
Wanna bet? Let me give you a few examples where I would censor you, and not even remotely give a shit about your 1st Amendment rights:
- I’m sitting in a restaurant and you start blabbing about censorship next to my table. Guess who’s gonna stand up and tell your stupid ass to shut the fuck up, and continue to do so until you do?
- I’m at home and you start yammering outside of it. Guess who’s going to give you to the count of three to get the fuck out before you get the hose?
Those are just a couple of examples, but I’m sure with enough time I can come up with plenty more. Your statement is bullshit, and I’m flagging it – see? There’s another one.
Next, it’s Thad, with a rejoinder to our post about Hannah Cox’s Washington Examiner article about Donald Trump’s lawsuit, and the notion that millennials are the entitled “participation trophy” generation:
I forget who said it, but giving kids participation trophies and then mocking them for getting participation trophies is the most Boomer thing ever.
But that can’t be right. Someone in the comments assured me that Roy Moore had a colorable claim because, quote, “Cohen isn’t sweetness and innocence.”
If the “sweetness and innocence” doctrine is not the bulletproof legal argument that an Internet Lawyer told me it was, then I don’t even know what I believe anymore.
🤡: “Patreon is censoring people!”
🤔: “Who’s being censored?”
🤔: “Why are they being censored?”
🤔: “Why should we care about your claim, then?”
🤡: “Because I said so.”
No wonder police departments feel they need military grade hardware to protect their officers, they keep recruiting people with skin so thin a stiff breeze can tear a hole right through them and any sort of criticism cuts through to the bone.
Finally, it’s Jojo with a response to Florida’s legal argument that it’s not the state’s new social media law that is unconstitutional, it’s Section 230:
Ah, the compelling and strong maneuver in Legal Defense that every lawyer is aware of: “No U.”
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon