Search results

Props to Tulsi Gabbard. She introduced a Section 230 reform bill that would remove legal immunity from tech companies that censor their users. Even the left is coming after their censorship now.

Trump received a higher percentage of African American & Hispanic votes in 2020 than in 2016. He lost the election because he lost support in multiple other areas.

I’m happy with the way things turned out. Assuming projections hold, there will be no Senate nuclear option, packing of courts, adding states, tax increases, or FTT in the near future. It will be business as usual with a less embarrassing president in the White House.

There are a lot of unknowns headed into tonight: 1. How accurate are the polls, and do they even matter outside of swing states? 2. Biden doesn't really motivate anyone. Will the left's hatred of Trump be enough motivation for him to win the election? 3. Will we even have a clear cut winner at...

Yes. Democrats had an overwhelming majority back in 1937, but they had too much integrity to manipulate the judicial branch for political gain.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

As you mentioned earlier, truth is a fluid concept. Everyone lies and most people telling the truth are only telling a portion of the truth. It's impossible for social media to control disinformation. I'm not on Twitter, FB, or Instagram. I'm definitely not on 4chan, so I have no idea what...

In the old days, news outlets wouldn't release a story unless it had been verified by at least 2 sources. Now most stories are built around unnamed sources that may or may not exist. Even the "true" stories tend to tell only a portion of the truth in an attempt to drive narrative. It's sad...

The NYT published a story citing unverified information regarding Trump's taxes. The NYP published a story citing unverified information regarding Hunter Biden's emails. Both stories seem to fall into the same category. Why was one story suppressed while the other was allowed to proliferate? It...

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news...

All social media companies set rules for using their platforms, and they moderate content whenever those rules are broken. There's nothing wrong with that. It's allowed under section 230. But that's very different from selectively enforcing the rules and using algorithms to drive content in the...

It looks like that survey was completed back on August 2nd and Biden announced Harris as his running mate on August 11th. So she could be more of a factor now. Most polls show that Trump has a slight lead with male voters, but Biden has a wide lead with female voters. I'm not sure if they're...

Most Democrats could care less about Biden, they're just voting against Trump. It will be interesting to see if that's enough to win the election.

That's not how it works. Defamation of character, libel, & slander laws apply to everyone, not just the press. As crazy as it sounds, Andrea Wylan could sue newwurldmn over the post that was made earlier in this thread. She wouldn't however be allowed to sue this site, because it isn't...

Websites that are considered publishers are held responsible for everything posted to their sites. CBS, ABC, CNN, the NYT, etc. have all had to face lawsuits over the past year due to things published on their sites. Why should social media companies receive immunity from lawsuits if they're...

You'll get no argument from me on this. Social media companies aren't required to provide freedom of speech to their users. They have the legal right to be as liberal or conservative as they want. They can use their algorithms to push or suppress anything they want. They can even try to help...

Fox News, CNN, the NYT, & the WaPo are all held liable for the content published on their sites. They can be sued for things like defamation of character and slander. See the Nick Sandmann lawsuits for reference. Social media companies are held to a very different legal standard under Section...

That's true. I'm not arguing that Section 230 should be removed. It's a vital part of the internet. All I'm saying is that social media companies are required to apply their rules equally to everyone if they want to claim the legal protection it provides. Jem gets it. Once a site starts...

Person A makes a slanderous post about person B. Person C makes a slanderous post about person D. Baron should apply the rules equally and remove both posts. He shouldn't decide which posts to remove based of whether or not he likes person B or person D. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. can all...