Can someone ask chatgp or whatever it’s called to explain the twitter files? Thanks.
Everyone knows this, the “discrimination” argument is just a stupid conservative head fake designed to take advantage of the appropriate instinctive opposition to discrimination that reasonable people have. A lot of conservative talking points are attempts to weaponize the good instincts of decent people. It’s how assholes “win” arguments.
7 Likes
It would make the internet user experience suck more, 100%, agree, but am to the point where Im willing to make the societal trade off.
Email would be fine, just like phones, but this site, Reddit, and many others would be dead.
Edit: things like YouTube would also likely die. Here’s a random tweet from today about a bs case vs YouTube that would be stronger without 230:
https://twitter.com/techdirt/status/1601288134947282945?t=4-Jq9c8oKOQFuB1m1C5z3A&s=19
Apparently libs of tiktok was protected from regular moderator action. That doesn’t seem like some anti right wing bias.
1 Like
Being protected from moderation isn’t enough, Twitter should have been amplifying their account otherwise they’re being illegally censored. FIRST AMENDMENT!!
1 Like
Here’s noted gonzo afficionado PJ O’Rourke:
I’m not sure but I think he was far from a teenager when he wrote this.
Things that don’t really fly anymore.
1 Like
Great - now do Musk’s decision to ban Kanye.
Or are we just swapping the people in power that make arbitrary judgements?
1 Like
Oh man you know JP wants in on the expert witness grift SOOOO bad. It must be killing him.
2 Likes
The best part of Twitter files 2 is it accuses previous twitter of the exact same policies musk has laid out for his twitter, regarding hate speech and misinformation.
This whole thing is so surreal.
1 Like
Cannot reconcile that portrait with those words
“Plus his Kermit the Frog voice made it impossible to focus,” added the court
1 Like
3 Likes
It’s not a very big oof, given that her audience doesn’t care, and is having the frenzied reaction she wants them to have
I expect these proposals to die, but content moderation stuff is still alive in the senate.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/content-moderation-sacrificed-left-right-deals-tech-reform
With the clock ticking on the postelection lame-duck session of Congress, tech reformers are pushing for votes on a package of bills that stalled over the summer. Three bills—the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, the Open App Markets Act, and the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act—would write special competition rules for large tech companies in ways that could fundamentally change how tech platforms moderate content like hate speech, disinformation, and incitement to violence. The Senate Judiciary Committee has sent all three bills to the Senate floor. But whether any of these three bills becomes law likely depends on whether Democrats and Republicans can hold a fragile coalition together in which each side ignores the thing that scares them most about the other: Republicans’ fear of big government that interferes in the market, and Democrats’ fear of harmful content proliferating online.
When I first read about the hold he had over all the young incels, I never questioned my imagined voice for him.
It was so shocking when I finally heard his voice.
My reaction was like the Norm Macdonald bit about how they say the reason people followed Hitler was that he was such a great orator, but have you ever heard him talk? “Schrinkley krinkley!” Not my idea of a silver-tongued devil!
2 Likes
The only place left for him is the modern version of late-night public television (eg Facebook, the Daily Wire).
I have been asked by some if I regret my role in bringing Jordan to the University of Toronto. I did not for many years, but I do now. He has done disservice to the professoriate. He cheapens the intellectual life with self-serving misrepresentations of important ideas and scientific findings. He has also done disservice to the institutions which have supported him. He plays to “victimhood” but also plays the victim. — Bernard Schiff, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto and former publisher of The Walrus
You might note that I haven’t said anything positive about Musk running Twitter. I don’t want any tech oligarchs deciding what citizens can or can’t say.
1 Like
I don’t think he’d be very good at it. Expert witness testimony benefits from clarity. Basically you need to make a complex issue accessible to a lay audience. JP’s MO is the exact opposite, he makes simple partly developed ideas sound complex with a bunch of word salad mumbo jumbo.
1 Like