Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks

from the you-did-what-now? dept

Why does Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi hate the internet? Wicker, who has a close relationship with big telcos, who have long made it their mission to destroy the open internet, was already a co-sponsor of an awful “Section 230 reform” bill last session, and is back now with what he’s ridiculously calling the “PRO-SPEECH” Act. It stands for “Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard Act.” But, in reality, it is a blatant (and unconstitutional) attack on free speech.

The bill more or less bans any website from doing any moderation. The key part:

An internet platform may not engage in a practice that does any of the following:

(1) Blocks or otherwise prevents a user or entity from accessing any lawful content, application, service, or device that does not interfere with the internet platform’s functionality or pose a data privacy or data security risk to a user.

(2) Degrades or impairs the access of a user or entity to lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, service, or use of a device that does not interfere with the internet platform’s functionality or pose a data privacy or data security risk to a user.

Consider it the all porn and all spam allowed act! Kind of ironic for a Senator who once pushed an unconstitutional ban on selling video games to children. Under this bill, sites couldn’t even stop kids from accessing or playing violent or pornographic video games.

There are two exceptions, both of which are silly. One is for “small internet platforms.” And the other is… wait for it… if you declare yourself a “publisher” then it no longer applies. Yes, that’s right. Senator Wicker is trying to make the ridiculous and nonsensical “publisher/platform” distinction an actual thing, despite the fact that this is blatantly unconstitutional.

Let’s just remind everyone how this works: the 1st Amendment includes both the right for any website hosting content to make editorial decisions about what it will and won’t include, as well as a right of association to say “I don’t want to be associated with that stuff.” In this setup, where a site has to declare itself a platform or a publisher, that effectively means taking away the 1st Amendment rights of a platform and turning into a garbage dump of spam and porn. Or… it has to declare itself a “publisher” at which point it faces liability for everything that shows up.

The end result is that this bill leans into the moderator’s dilemma and creates two types of internet sites: complete garbage dumps of spam/abuse/porn/harassment where no moderation can take place, and Hollywood-backed squeaky clean productions. It wipes out the parts of the internet that most people actually like: the lightly moderated/curated user-generated aspects of social media that enable lots of people to have a voice and to connect with others, without being driven away by spammers, assholes, and abusers.

It also throws in this tidbit to make it clear Wicker doesn’t want social media sites to kick Nazis off their platforms any more:

An internet platform may not take any action against a user or entity based on racial, sexual, religious, political affiliation, or ethnic grounds.

Thing is, discrimination on racial, sexual, religious, and ethnic grounds is already covered under civil rights laws — and they’re protected classes because they’re mostly things inherent to someone, and not choices they make. Your political views and affiliation are different. And, the fact is, there are almost no sites out there (despite what ignorant people are screaming) that do any moderation based on political affiliation. Or, if they do, it’s to literally ban the American Nazi Party. But under Wicker’s bill, you couldn’t ban the American Nazi Party or its members any more.

I wonder why he wants that?

Then there’s the “I’m protecting Parler” part of the bill. It says this would be a presumed method of “unfair competition.”

Any action taken by a larger internet platform that wholly blocks or prohibits an internet platform that competes with the large internet platform (or any affiliate of the large internet platform) from making use of the large internet platform.

So, this would mean that a platform like Parler could violate every policy it wants of companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, and they would not be allowed to kick it off for any of those policy violations.

There are also onerous transparency requirements based on the false idea that there is a clear set of rules that every platform uses, rather than an ever-changing and evolving set of policies that is constantly dealing with edge cases.

The whole thing is a stupid wishlist of whiny fake conservatives who want to play the victim and claim they’re oppressed for the culture war they’re waging. But the end result would be wiping out all the important and useful parts of the internet, and dividing into two piles: all garbage all the time, or the Disney-fied, locked down part. No one should want that.

Which makes you wonder why Wicker does.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Senator Wicker Introduces Bill To Guarantee The Internet Sucks”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
145 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

What's that about being careful about wishes again?

Koby, this is what you wanted. Are you going to communicate with your state’s senators to make sure this passes? I can’t expect this to pass judicial review should it
A. get out of Senate committee
B. survive a filibuster
C. pass the Senate
D. get out of House committee
E. pass the house
F. get signed by Biden

Considering all that constitutional and parliamentary procedure and not much public appetite for this, this has little if any chance of passing. Are you going to write to your senators to cosponsor this? Telling by your past comments here on this web site, this seems to be right up your alley.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: What's that about being careful about wishes again?

"Why are so many on this site so desperate to feed the troll?"

Because in this particular case the troll has an agenda. Koby is basically the softspoken guy sent into a bar by nazis to sound out the waters. The person who keeps advocating an unreasonable suggestion again, again and again without ever directly stating the first and foremost reason he keeps pushing that suggestion; Because he thinks the suggestion in question will allow deplorable assholes to force the majority to hear them out.

In this he’s wrong of course. Abolishing section 230 the way the alt-right wants to will make things inconvenient for liberals – but it will also guarantee no alt-right asshat ever finds a platform to speak on again because those people literally can not open their mouths without saying something where only being anonymous saves them from a lawsuit. Stormfront and Breitbart will both have to close their forums for comments or risk becoming liable every time someone takes offense.

This is not the type of troll you can ignore, unless you want to be the guy pulling the next Niemöller.

anon says:

the equal protection clause

Let’s just remind everyone how this works: the 1st Amendment >includes both the right for any website hosting content to make >editorial decisions about what it will and won’t include, as well as >a right of association to say "I don’t want to be associated with >that stuff."

Does that also apply to banks and other financial institutions?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: the equal protection clause

How is that question relevant to hosting content?

But a bank or financial institution may terminate any business-dealings with you if you are doing something they don’t want to be associated with or if you for example default on your loans or have a bad credit score.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: the equal protection clause

Banks can offer some services or not offer them. Like that?

The can also turn down sketchy customers and report them. In some cases, they are legally obligated to do so.

If they have a website with a comments section, they can moderate it.

Only one of these things has anything to do with speech, mind you.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: the equal protection clause

"Does that also apply to banks and other financial institutions?"

Last I checked no bank is obligated to give you a loan.

So yes.

The whole attempt to undermine the right of a private entity to own and moderate a social platform, a bar, or – why not – a bank, is just a desperate attempt by people considered repulsive assholes by the vast majority of the citizenry to force themselves into privately owned spaces where they aren’t welcome or obtain services which aren’t being offered.

Or to summarize it; The only people normally asking that question are entitled white trash struck dumb in outrage that people aren’t willing to let them use the N-word in places those people own.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Ensure Every Consumer is Heard Act

So being heard is not a constitutional right. Not having the government prevent you from being heard is a constitutional right. The difference can be subtle at times, but it’s significant.

In fact, I would imagine any "right to be heard" bill would be unconstitutional.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That’s been pretty much the modus operandi for the GOP for some time now; Call loudly for smaller government in every election, then as soon as they get the office space, expand government and/or drop a few trillion tax dollars into some war or yet another intelligence agency intended to keep americans safe from the big bad commie, antifan agent, or big bad gay person.

They just weren’t this upfront or obvious about it, until the last few years, during which it became pretty damn clear that what they really want is government big enough for them not to have to care about the "will of the people" ever again.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

An internet platform may not engage in a practice that does any of the following:

(1) Blocks or otherwise prevents a user or entity from accessing any lawful content, application, service, or device that does not interfere with the internet platform’s functionality or pose a data privacy or data security risk to a user.

Ummm Doesn’t that murder copyright? It seems that Netflix’s requiring a password and a paid account is blocking people from accessing lawful content. And Steam, and basically every other online game store are blocking people from accessing all the games they require people to pay for.

There’s probably tons more stupid ways to "correctly" read that

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I don’t think Netflix qualifies as an internet platform as defined in the bill. Steam does, however, as it would be an ‘app store.’ Which means that Steam could never ban anyone from the service, even for EULA violations, as long as they’d downloaded even a single free game.

Interestingly, operating systems are included in the definition of "internet platform." While I’m sure Android is the intended target, it also would cover Windows, Linux, Apple Mac and iPhone OSes, video game console OSes…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'You're either supporting all that or doing so as a coward'

As always when someone plays the ‘lawful content’ card it’s worthwhile to remind people what that includes. Being racist and/or sexist is lawful, advocating that gays should be tortured until they ‘give up their sinful ways’ is legal, opining that the nazis had some really great ideas and it was a shame that they were prevented from really doing something about those filthy jews is also legal…

Someone trying to force sites to host all ‘lawful content’ is someone trying to prevent sites from doing anything about the above content and more, and as such they should be forced to either own their own position regarding said content or show what craven cowards they are as they slink away and try to avoid overtly doing so.

(Flipping the tables a bit since I imagine a good number of people among that pack of scum would see no problem with the above arguing that the romans had the right idea in throwing christians to the lions is legal, supporting the idea that those that would overthrow a government because they don’t like the result don’t deserve to be citizens or have any rights under the system they tried to destroy is legal, the idea that anyone who votes republican are deluded fools at best and should be constantly mocked and belittled until they smarten up, also legal. Somehow I doubt that those that might be in favor of the first set would be quite as happy if this set was also given legal protection and forbidden from being moderated.)

ECA (profile) says:

may not engage

1

" lawful content,"
In what country or USA state?
Bestiality is still legal in SOME states.
Spam isnt really illegal
Want to know whats illegal in the Muslim groups?? How about China? The Philippines?
HOW about whats LEGAL in Bangkok Thailand? in the red district?
What was that Problem the USA had problems with?>? OFF SHORE GAMBLING??

2

"lawful internet traffic"
I love most of this, as its NOT against the Internet corps, its mostly the Tier 1 and 2 sections of the internet, AND the ISP’s.
For 1/2 of this see #1, Lawful?
the rest, is to DEFINE Access to the net. Min/max and WHAT the ISP’s have to upgrade and KEEP accessible. AS well as how much they can charge.

After all of this, can the Internet Pass the buck to this person for all the Posting and DMCA running amok?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Section 230 should be reformed, but people who are defamed have other avenues, especially if someone does it at their job or if their employer is known.

Guy calls a woman a hooker, he works for a Fortune 500 company that just became a hostile environment to the woman (employees who bully potential workers are a legal liability). She sues, he’s fired. Even better: they’re both in on it and split the proceeds.

All made possible by Section 230! (otherwise the defamer couldn’t post)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Show me.
Because most posts take abit of time to get rid of, its NOT instant unless you use Certain key words that are saying you HATE PEOPLE or things or are willing to kill someone, or just derogatory comments.

But 230 is based on 1 fact. YOU, not the site is responsible for what YOU say/post.

This also is funny because of the Bill and laws placed about BACK PAGE. cops loved the site, but WHO didnt? Blame it all on Child protection. But WHO didnt want to get caught in a Solicitation Net.

Our gov. is showing off that thet can HIDE what they want. NOT being logical and letting the REAL world invade their OWN privacy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re:

Well, it seems you have never procreated and you definitely aren’t a lawyer either. If you don’t understand why I mention this you don’t understand the problem either which makes me cheer on "big tech" if they can make sure that I never see a post from you again since what you post is most likely one of those "certain things".

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
techflaws (profile) says:

And, the fact is, there are almost no sites out there (despite what
ignorant people are screaming) that do any moderation based on
political affiliation.

Other than Parler of course who banned (leftist) posters who were rightfully mocking the dear whiner-in-chief (aka the lame duck).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'Non-christians/jews/muslims need not apply'

It is, but as I’ve seen pointed out religion is put on the list of protected classes because without it you could very easily end up with a situation where which religion(especially ‘none’) you are a member is treated as acceptable grounds for discrimination.

That said I don’t think that should ever be treated as grounds for immunity from consequences, so if for example a religion taught that dark skin was a sign of sin that would be stupid but not illegal, but if it was used as grounds to bar dark skinned people from jobs that shouldn’t be given a pass just because it’s religiously motivated.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'Non-christians/jews/muslims need not apply'

Dont ya love history?
A bunch of EU white people run around the world, claiming lands, that are already populated. Then start to move in, bring in Christ religion, and demand that, "your beliefs are wrong, ours is right, and if you dont believe us, we will kill you". We convert them and then enslave them, in the Christian tradition.
China kicked all of us OUT, as those EU and US white people were instigating things, abit to much.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

“ “Consider it the all porn and all spam allowed act”
Porn good. Spam bad.
There: I said it. 😉

Bills like this are too extreme.
I still think the easiest way to placate is some level of supporting 2 strike or three strike rules and requiring companies to explicitly define what a user did wrong. Allowing that user to chose to do it or not do it again with full understanding.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'I said the color of trees, not green, therefore no violation'

Do you want rules-lawyer trolls? Because that’s how you get rules-lawyer trolls.

‘You accused me of violating the rules in this way but while that might be a violation of the spirit of the rules according to a reading of it by some people I very clearly did not violate the specific rules as listed, and as such your ruling is unjustified and any punishment even more so.’

Your position assumes good faith on the part of the users, assumes moderation is a clear-cut process and doesn’t take into account the sheer scale of moderation that takes place on a daily basis for a platform, any of which would be problematic on their own. If a site had to explain every little bit of moderation not only are they going to provide a road-map for trolls and rules-lawyers to game but they’re likely to do a lot less moderation due to not having the resources to both moderate and explain every single decision, and you can be damn sure that trolls would game the system by contesting every moderation choice and demanding exacting detail on what they did that triggered the strike, effectively punishing a site for engaging in moderation.

Moderation will always have it’s share of problems, problems which will increase as the scale of the platform does but the solution to that is not to punish platforms for doing so as down that road leads to even worse systems(no moderation, heavily moderated platforms or no need for moderation because user-submitted content is banned), rather the simplest fix is one of competition, where if one platform gets too heavy handed in their moderation another platform can provide an alternative, and if they’re offering is good enough then the first platform is likely to start bleeding users until they either adapt or go under.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"I still think the easiest way to placate is some level of supporting 2 strike or three strike rules and requiring companies to explicitly define what a user did wrong."

Ay caramba.

You do realize that you are demanding that everyone who offers free entry – including any webpage with a comment section, any forum, every individual comment field and – extended in real life – every bar and restaurant…is going to have to employ dozens, hundreds or even thousands of moderators all writingt down painstakinbg legal statements as to why they banned or evicted users x, y and z?

This sort of shit scales very badly. So badly, in fact, that I can only envision it being supported by those who haven’t given a single thought to what exactly they’re suggesting or a lobbyist representing unemployed paralegals who knows exactly what they just said actually means.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, it would mean less bans, less removal of content, and more filtering and non-destructive moderating.

It would mean m, I’d HOPE, most web services would adopt the more common user-based moderation of tagging and flagging (like this site has).
Or sites closing user based content sections.
I would HOPE more sites opted to be less restrictive using bans and more into letting the community decide how public some things should be.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of for… in that case just say you want to punish sites who engage in moderation in the hopes that they’ll do less of it, don’t pussyfoot around with ‘I think it would placate the trolls if…’ line just state the goal of less moderation at the outset.

As for dumping it on the users I’d suggest you search TD for ‘As Facebook Agrees To Pay $52 Million In PTSD Payments To Moderators, Why Are Some Demanding More Human Moderators?’, an article that talks about just how bad an idea that would be and how it’s already a horrific job for people that are paid to do it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“…in that case just say you want to punish sites who engage in moderation in the hopes that they’ll do less of it“
That’s not my stance.
I prefer any method of moderation short of deletion. But legally they can moderate any way they choose.

I question how a person is supposed to know what not to do again when they get a message:
‘You posting privileges have been suspended for 2 hours for a Terms Of Service (TOS) infraction. Repeated violations will result in further punishment and potentially closure of you account”
What post was a violation. What rule did it violate?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That’s not my stance.

The acts you’re suggesting be done to placate trolls who whine about “censorship” say otherwise.

What post was a violation. What rule did it violate?

Speaking from personal experience: Twitter told me exactly what tweet I had to delete when they suspended me over the usage of an anti-gay slur (context: I’d used it in an argument about anti-gay attitudes). Not every service will be as forthcoming as Twitter, but not every service is Twitter, and not every service needs to be that forthcoming — especially when an asshole likely knows exactly why they got banned/suspended.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

That may not be what you think you’re pushing for but if a site has to explain in explicit detail how a user broke the rules that’s what will effectively happen, as such a move would drastically increase the workload of moderators and motivate them to do a lot less of it, something which your own comment listed as a desirable outcome.

More transparency would be nice at times but TD is running an entire series of articles(Content Moderation Case studies) showing how moderation is not a clearcut thing a lot of the time, which would make a requirement that sites give detailed explanations not only a hefty problem but also train trolls in exactly how to bypass the rules since they’d know exactly what to avoid for the next post.

If you want to dump more of the moderation on the user-base again, read that article I listed, or if you want to experience it yourself I invite you to check out one of the infamous chans(4 or 8) and browse through their category of positively delightful content to see what your suggestion would foist on the user base in general to wade through.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

That One Guy has a point I wasn’t considering.

Twitter’s staff (and other top social sites). With active member numbers in the 10s of millions.
Sure, In see individual notation could quickly become problems for staff.

It’s obvious most Republicans and some Democrats are finding issues with the tech status quo.

Obviously I now recognise loosing 230 could be problematic. I’m not sold it couldn’t be legislated in other ways.

Thing to consider then:
Is there anything that diehard pro-230s can see as a negotiated compromise?
Is there any level of better detailing that wouldn’t open up the troll world many here describe as waiting in the wings, but would allow users better ignorance safeguards as to stopping repeated violations?

I recognise some sites prefer a clean interface; and my personal method I use of flagging disruption as NSFW, politics, porn, etc. and moving it to the sandbox doesn’t appease everyone.

My methodology clearly wouldn’t work on a school’s lesson discussion site for 5th graders.

The question is where to draw the lines. Where does practical become deviance.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You appear to be arguing from a viewpoint that starts with the idea that anybody should be able to say anything on any platform. Society has never worked that way in that any grouping of people have norms that define what is acceptable. If you do not like the norms of a group, you can find or found a group to suite your norms. That may result in a very small group, and that is an indication of popularity of the norms of the group, and not a problem to be solved by legal force.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

It’s obvious most Republicans and some Democrats are finding issues with the tech status quo.

For diametrically opposed and unconstitional reasons generally, as democrats gunning for 230 are doign so because they want platforms to moderate more whereas republicans are doing so because they want platforms to moderate less. As much as they might complain about the current system neither of them would be happy with a ‘win’ because in no case does it end up how they want it to or think it would.

Is there anything that diehard pro-230s can see as a negotiated compromise?

As I have yet to hear a problem with the law that’s both valid and constitutional I’m going to go with ‘no’ on that. All 230 does is makes clear that first amendment rights of association and property rights aren’t something you can be sued over and that if someone else uses your property for something you’re not held liable for that, both things that are blindingly obvious offline yet for whatever reason needed to be made explicitly clear online, and as such I’m not seeing any problem with the law that would need to be tweaked or any grounds or reason to ‘compromise’ on.

Is there any level of better detailing that wouldn’t open up the troll world many here describe as waiting in the wings, but would allow users better ignorance safeguards as to stopping repeated violations?

A system more transparent to the general public that wouldn’t also be abused by trolls and other bad faith actors? Ehh, not likely as there will always be people looking for exploits, but if that’s your goal apply social pressure to try to get more transparency or create a competing platform that is more transparent with the goal of pressuring the current ones to change are what come to mind.

I recognise some sites prefer a clean interface; and my personal method I use of flagging disruption as NSFW, politics, porn, etc. and moving it to the sandbox doesn’t appease everyone.

Given moderators for larger platforms can deal with such horrific content that they end up with PTSD and need counseling as a result no, that’s really not a viable option in general as a platform that leaves wading through content like that to moderate by the users on an individual basis is one that’s going to find itself with a quickly shrinking user-base in short order.

The question is where to draw the lines. Where does practical become deviance.

At the moment the line is drawn by the platforms in question as they set the rules of acceptable content and behavior and you either follow those rules or you get shown the door. Don’t like it find another platform or try to convince enough people to apply pressure to the platform to change, keeping in mind that their focus on the bottom line means that they will always strive towards creating a platform that the majority of people will want to use.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Despite the hostility, often partisan, anger, and occasional childish attacks:
The users here opened my eyes to something I didn’t consider.
Property rights.
For the Americans I don’t give a damn about your non-codified right FROM association. I do find the words of the British philosopher Crowley and later the great ASL l, to be a great guide though for life in general. Do as thy whilte.
Show me a single Supreme Court case that declares freedom from association as a precedent. Because two cases come to mind l. Both said it was specific to the case at hand.

I Only point out one thing:
There’s a historical precedent for the Republicans to take Congress in 22.

PRF says 40% of Republicans would definitely or likely vote for trump in 2024. An NPR/NR poll says 98% of republicans will vote Republican in 22. According to Fox 52% of independents are undecided. Take that as you will with whatever seasoning you choose.

In reality there is a very good chance for a Republican Congress come 22. Given 32 Democrats, per Breitbart, have stated dislike of 230 and there’s little doubt that if the current opinions hold post election and Republicans do win 230 is dead.

So this is where I piss off the partisans and self righteous:

It took a few weeks but this site’s users convinced me.
Think long and hard about the reality of the situation.

Consider if it’s worth dying on your sword under the likes of STS who are so blindly lockstep intrenched in their political beliefs that zero compromise is possible.

Write your congregation members. Tell the Republicans how property right are at risk.

Tell democrats how repeal will lead to closure of content.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

I don’t give a damn about your non-codified right FROM association

yes yes, you think people should be forced to listen to you, we get it

Show me a single Supreme Court case that declares freedom from association as a precedent.

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) reasoned that a state’s interests in eradicating gender discrimination trumped the right of male members in social clubs to associate only with males and not females.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) reasoned that the “interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.”

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) reasoned that unions could not force employees to pay for fees for ideological and political activities not relevant to the union’s basic collective-bargaining duties.

how’s that, is that good enough for you

Consider if it’s worth dying on your sword under the likes of STS who are so blindly lockstep intrenched in their political beliefs that zero compromise is possible.

Mitch McConnell has already said that if the Republicans take the Senate back in 2022, he would move to block any Supreme Court nominee put forth by Joe Biden in 2024. I have to assume he would also block any nominee named in 2023 as well.

Mitch McConnell has already said that he plans to prioritize stonewalling the Biden administration in the Senate, mainly by using the filibuster. He said much the same thing about the Obama administration in 2010 (and did as much from 2010 to the end of Obama’s two terms).

does that sound like someone who is open to negotiations with people who do not fall in lockstep with him

Tell the Republicans how property right are at risk.

you really think they’ll give a fuck after Dear Leader tells them to keep attacking Twitter out of revenge

Tell democrats how repeal will lead to closure of content.

we’ve been doing that, asshole

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

For the Americans I don’t give a damn about your non-codified right FROM association.

Awesome, I look forward to your support when I tell the local priest to get bent as I am going to be preaching the good words of the FSM in the place where everyone is(his church) and he has no right to tell me to get lost, and if he keeps refusing I’ll get the government to step in and threaten him with legal action if he keeps being obstinate.

Consider if it’s worth dying on your sword under the likes of STS who are so blindly lockstep intrenched in their political beliefs that zero compromise is possible.

‘Look, they just want to throw one or two boxes of kittens into the blender, why are you being so stubborn and refusing to compromise, only ever sticking to your ‘no’?’

There are times for compromise and times to refuse to give an inch, this is on of the latter as those trying to gut 230 are attacking first amendment and property rights simply because they don’t like how other people are using those rights.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“ Awesome, I look forward to your support when I tell the local priest to get bent as I am going to be preaching the good words of the FSM in the place where everyone is…”
You have it! I’d pay to see that!

The problem with deletion and go elsewhere is it’s not a direct parallel to the physical world.
In the real world you could stand in front of the church with a sign and scream hail the Monster.
You can stand in front of a bar a yell god hates drunks.
You can stand outside the coal factory and shout the polar ice caps will melt by 3022. That last one may be accurate.

You can’t stand in front of Twitter and communicate with Twitter users in the same way.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

The problem with deletion and go elsewhere is it’s not a direct parallel to the physical world.

If a bar owner kicks you out for insulting [local sports team], you can go to any other bar in…well, the world, really…and insult [local sports team] there. If Twitter deletes your speech, you can go to any other website on the Internet that accepts third-party submissions and repost the same speech that Twitter deleted. That other bars/websites may kick you out for the same speech is irrelevant — they’re still options. Until and unless you can prove that being denied the privilege of speaking on private property you don’t own is the exact same thing as losing the right to speak anywhere (including public property), your argument here is like an earthworm: It doesn’t have any legs to stand on.

You can’t stand in front of Twitter and communicate with Twitter users in the same way.

So what? They’re not obliged to listen, and you’re not entitled to make them listen. Same goes for people in meatspace, with one small difference: Someone would probably call the cops on you for disturbing the peace outside those places, whereas no one can call the cops on you for shittalking Twitter on Facebook, Soundcloud, YouTube, Techdirt, Mastodon, Parler, Gab, LiveJournal, 4chan, 8kun…

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

“ If a bar owner kicks you out for insulting [local sports team], you can go to any other bar in…well, the world, really…and insult [local sports team] there…”
Or, you could stand in front of the bar on the public sidewalk and denounce the team to the same people you’d reach inside.

“ Someone would probably call the cops on you for disturbing the peace outside those places”
Maybe, maybe but even if they do there’s nothing the police can do. Unless a local law, ordinance, regulation, rule makes it illegal stand in that sidewalk at that time.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Teach me to use sarcasm, you really don’t care for property rights…

You can’t stand in front of Twitter and communicate with Twitter users in the same way.

Tough, neither a platform nor audience of your choice has ever been a right or even reasonable expectation to have, the fact that if you want to keep speaking you’ll have to use another platform and/or method that might not have the same audience because the current one doesn’t want you around is a ‘you’ problem and not one that warrants or justifies legal pressure to change.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Cape Charles, southington, Huntington…
All have different bans on silly string.
One, Southington, had a ban on possession. How is someone from California supposed to know about a ban in another city. On the other side of the country.
In the online world how is a user from one site supposed to understand “between the lines” of another site’s generic tos?

When you break the law in the real world they tell you what you did wrong. Why do you not have that same level of explication online?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

In the online world how is a user from one site supposed to understand “between the lines” of another site’s generic tos?

By trying to understand what the TOS says instead of needing every last part of it defined every step of the way, down to the last word.

When you break the law in the real world they tell you what you did wrong. Why do you not have that same level of explication online?

Because violating a TOS doesn’t break any laws unless the violation is also an illegal act. Someone could say “fuck your mother” to me on my property, and I could still kick them out without explanation even though they didn’t break any laws.

oh wait that would be censorship, wouldn’t it, I’d be preventing them from saying “fuck your mother” everywhere according to your definition of censorship

fuck off, you disingenuous bad-faith bullshitter

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Well then. Mindful that is you being disingenuous when you’ve not challenged my use of “law” in contra till now.
Rules:laws. Same thing at any specific level. Be it homeowners laws, state laws, temple law or the laws of your household.

“ Law — a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” —MWCD

Hence my comparison.
That fact covered:

That One Guy has a point i wasn’t considering.
::

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Please cite the email that proves a government agency or any representative of the federal government directly and explicitly ordered Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media service to remove any kind of speech at the explicit and knowing behest of the United States government at any level.

I’ll wait.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Nothing Conterversial

lol!

He is informed Jan 31 that the virus looks engineered. There is a all hands meeting Feb 1. Now we dont know what happened during that meeting but we do know that on Feb 2 Fauci is sending e-mails to kill an India Institute of Technology Paper that says the virus looks engineered.

Now those who worship Saint Fauci like yourself say ‘well the science changed.’ The science did not change in 2 days!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Yes or no: Would knowing the origin of the virus on any of those three dates have done anything to change the course of the pandemic, including the response to the pandemic from then-President Donald Trump and his administration?

  • If “no”: I see little reason to care about those emails.
  • If “yes”: You need to explain, in great detail, how knowing the origin of the virus would’ve prevented the hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of infections in the United States alone, never mind the millions of deaths and infections around the world, and would’ve suddenly turned an incompentent, naccissistic, corrupt-to-the-core asshole into a competent leader who actually gave a damn about the American people in general, but especially the ones who didn’t vote for him.
Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Back to your name calling I see.
Well, if the world were quickly informed about the true laboratory source there would have been considerably less pushback against closing travel from China. Just to start.
Meaning inbound travel would have been cut off faster and far less of the ability of the virus to spread.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Back to your name calling

Are you upset because I dared to insult your Dear Leader, or are you upset because I’m right?

if the world were quickly informed about the true laboratory source there would have been considerably less pushback against closing travel from China. Just to start.

Three things.

  1. Although the possibility of the virus coming from a laboratory is plausible, it is not yet verifiable fact, and you’d do well to stop acting like it is — unless, say, you want us to consider you to be little better than people who spread QAnonsense.
  2. Stopping travel from China would’ve done nothing to stop travel to/from Europe, which is most likely the way COVID-19 entered the United States in the first place, or interstate travel by infected persons within this country.
  3. Stopping travel from China also would’ve done nothing to make Donald Trump a more caring and compassionate person or a more competent/less corrupt leader.
Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

1) it’s realistically the most likely source given all the evidence finally leaking out that Dr Flipflop couldn’t keep covered up.
Given the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to a manufactured virus and that it came from the WIV only a fool still puts most resources elsewhere.

2) if the IS shut down travel from China based on the known evidence that was buried, it’s likely other countries would have followed likewise. Greatly reducing the pandemic.

3) the only people who believe this are those with their face buried in politically controlled liberal media.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

it’s realistically the most likely source

“Likely” does not mean “certain” or “factual”. Either prove a lab was the source or stop acting like you have the omniscience of God Herself.

if the IS shut down travel from China based on the known evidence that was buried, it’s likely other countries would have followed likewise

This assumes that travel would’ve been shut down before, not after, the virus reached other continents. You can’t guarantee, with the precision and omniscience of God Herself, that shutting down travel from China any earlier would’ve prevented COVID-19 from reaching the United States.

the only people who believe this are those with their face buried in politically controlled liberal media

Tell me something: How many families of COVID-19 victims did Donald Trump call to console? How many times did he openly mourn the deaths of COVID victims — or, hell, any victim of violence (e.g., Heather Heyer)?

He is a man devoid of compassion and empathy. He cares not about the pain and suffering and misery of others unless it amuses him — his enthralled and enraptured reaction to the insurrection proves as much. He wouldn’t have ever cared about anyone who died from COVID-19 if his lack of compassion (and the inaction it caused) would’ve improved his polling numbers.

And from the moment the virus neared the doorstep of the U.S., Old 45 was adamant in ignoring the threat of COVID-19 even as it became the deadliest pandemic in a century and tore through the country like a tornado tears through a trailer park. “It’ll just go away,” he said. “It’s under control,” he claimed. “We should look into injecting people with disinfectants,” he mused. Every time he was given a chance to act like a leader and reassure the country that the pandemic was under control, he was anywhere from days to months late with that reassurance — and all because he wanted to keep the economy open, since that was the one thing he was running for reëlection on (until COVID fucked all that up).

Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath who cares not about whether someone suffers so much as he cares about whether the right people (i.e., his ideological “enemies”) suffer — and whether he gets to make them suffer. If he thought signing a bill to legalize state-sponsored executions of queer people for being queer would somehow hurt Democrats, he’d probably sign it within an hour of its passage in Congress. He doesn’t — can’t — care about other people; it’s not who he is, and it’s not who he’ll ever be.

A vote for Donald Trump was, is, and always will be a vote for the suffering of the marginalized. Fuck him and his supporters.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:15 What Standard of Proof

"“Likely” does not mean “certain” or “factual”. Either prove a lab was the source or stop acting like you have the omniscience of God Herself."

What standard of proof are you using? You do know what standard of proof means don’t you? Probable cause? Preponderance of the evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Your Dumb and Dumber logic ‘so you are saying there is a chance’ after a female tells your chances with her are a ‘million to one’, something Im sure you get a lot, is not considered an acceptable standard of proof any any court of law of public opinion that I know of.

Hate to burst your bubble.

No … no … I dont.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

“ Likely” does not mean “certain” or “factual”. ”
And yet CNN etc spent the entire pandemic ignoring it. Simple because Trump said it was probable.

“ This assumes that travel would’ve been shut down before, not after, the virus reached other continents. ”
No it doesn’t. And shows you have no medical understanding.
The idea to close China flights was suggest by medical experts early on. And included closing access from other countries as needed.
It’s always wise to start with the source.
Follow the spread, and close travel as necessary.
Stopping travel as necessary, not on a whim.

There’s no need to shut off travel from a country with 50 cases. You make adjustments as it spreads, or doesn’t.

“ shutting down travel from China any earlier would’ve prevented COVID-19 from reaching the United States.”
I have yet to read anyone in a position of power who said this, including Trump.
You need to stop reading out of context partial quotes and start reading the source statement.

Shutting down travel on the day the order was issued had the potential to greatly reduce the number of infections.
10 infected people can spread less than 100. It’s simple math.

“ We should look into injecting people with disinfectants,” he mused.
There you go again with the 100% false out of context statement. Don’t put quotes around your own interpretation of what was actually said.

The rest of your post is partisan nonsense not worth responding to.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

"And yet CNN etc spent the entire pandemic ignoring it. Simple because Trump said it was probable."

Hint: despite what right-wing echo chambers tell you, not everyone interested in fact care what CNN says.

Whatever Trump said, he lied about the pandemic before the situation for which he fired the experts installed by prior administrations told him, and by the time he ineffectually blocked flights from those regions, it had already spread to non-Chinese areas from where he was allowing free travel.

"There’s no need to shut off travel from a country with 50 cases"

Yet, the places that did just that have had virtually normal life for the last year.

"10 infected people can spread less than 100. It’s simple math."

So, you don’t understand exponential maths. Figures.

"The rest of your post is partisan nonsense not worth responding to."

It would make more sense if you didn’t pretend that 90% of the sources that don’t feed you lies are controlled by Democrats and looked at global sources for a global pandemic.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Did he?

"Whatever Trump said, he lied about the pandemic before the situation for which he fired the experts installed by prior administrations told him, and by the time he ineffectually blocked flights from those regions, it had already spread to non-Chinese areas from where he was allowing free travel."

Why are you so sure about the lie. As Dr. Redfield just said in numerous interviews at the early stages of the pandemic because of the lies told by individuals like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Daszak we were operating on the assumption that COVID-19 was a naturally occurring SARS like virus.

This lie caused us to grossly under estimate the R0 of the virus. We had no clue it was so contagious until much later in the outbreak because we had no clue that it could have been engineered to target human cells.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

CNN etc spent the entire pandemic ignoring it

So what? Even if we discovered the source of the virus now, it wouldn’t do anything to stop the virus from spreading and mutating into deadlier variants. It wouldn’t have stopped the virus a year ago to the day, either. The source became largely irrelevant to the broader fight against the pandemic because…well, because there was a pandemic going on and we needed to care more about people dying than about where the virus came from.

The idea to close China flights was suggest by medical experts early on. And included closing access from other countries as needed.

How early on — before the virus “escaped”, or what? I mean, closing travel before the virus could become widespread in China might’ve helped, sure. But again, that is no guarantee that enough travellers would’ve been stopped from entering their home countries and spreading the virus.

Hindsight is always 20/20. But just like we can’t know how the events of 9/11 and its immediate aftermath would’ve turned out had Al Gore been POTUS, we can’t know whether stopping travel early on would’ve kept COVID-19 limited to China. None of us are God Herself; we don’t have that kind of absolute knowledge.

There’s no need to shut off travel from a country with 50 cases.

One case is all that a virus needs to spread. One case can, on its own, create a pandemic under the right conditions.

I have yet to read anyone in a position of power who said this, including Trump.

Wasn’t he the President of the United States who said that the U.S. only had a handful of cases that were going to go away about a month before the shit really hit the fan? Because I don’t recall anyone else acting as the President of the United States at the time. ????

Shutting down travel on the day the order was issued had the potential to greatly reduce the number of infections.

Millions infected and over a half-million dead — yeah, how’d that work out?

10 infected people can spread less than 100. It’s simple math.

Millions infected and over a half-million dead — yeah, how’s that math looking right now?

There you go again with the 100% false out of context statement.

It’s called exaggeration and paraphrasing, you burnt-out lightbulb of a person.

Don’t put quotes around your own interpretation of what was actually said.

Or else what, bitch?

The rest of your post is partisan nonsense not worth responding to.

Is it because you’re a coward, or is it because you know I’m right?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

“ So what?”
Well, knowing the virus was created in the early days could have helped in developing Safeguards even faster. Rather than run around and cry we could have put far more pressure on getting the research from the lab released to see what they modified in order to respond to it.

Closing travel as the virus spread was exactly what should have been done. Starting with the source country. Then others as it became necessary.
Every person who fought travel restrictions is directly responsible for the spread.

“ 9/11 and its immediate aftermath would’ve turned out had Al Gore been POTUS”
What the he’ll nonsense are you on about?

“ we can’t know whether stopping travel early on would’ve kept COVID-19 limited to China. ”
I doubt it would have. But it would have reduced our exposure.

Less cases to spread reduces chances to spread.

“ Wasn’t he the President of the United States who said that the U.S. only had a handful of cases that were going to go away about a month before the shit really hit the fan?”
We’ll never know how much the impact could have been reduced. Because blocking travel from the source country was delayed.

“ exaggeration”
Nice to see you change your tune.
You went from it’s fact to exaggerating.

“ Or else what, bitch?”
Or else people will call you out for your false quotation.
Quite foolish AND hypocritical to preach about truth while making up quotes.

“ Is it because you’re a coward, or is it because you know I’m right?”
Neither. I’ve grown tired of dissecting your fictional narrative.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18

Well, knowing the virus was created in the early days could have helped in developing Safeguards even faster.

Considering Trump threw out the safeguards already developed — e.g., the pandemic playbook and the pandemic response team — I don’t see how the response from one of the worst federal administrations of this generation would’ve improved with the knowledge of where the virus originated.

we could have put far more pressure on getting the research from the lab

Again: Until you know for an absolute fact that the virus came from a lab, stop acting like the assertion — no matter how probable — is a fact.

Closing travel as the virus spread was exactly what should have been done. Starting with the source country. Then others as it became necessary.

And by the time we shut down travel from other countries, the virus could’ve still made it into the United States. One case is all that is necessary for the virus to spread. Think in terms of a simple doubling sequence: One person infects another (two), those two infect another two (four total), those four each infect another (eight total), and so on.

But given international travel patterns and modern socialization, the possibility of one person only infecting one other person is incredibly low. So let’s jack up the initial infection after arrival to, oh, let’s say five (six total). Those six infect five more people each for a total thirty-six infected people, and they all infect five more people each for a total of 216 infected people. Within five generations of infections, we’re looking at at least 45,000 infected persons — and that could be well before the Patient Zero of this situation even starts showing symptoms.

Shutting down travel would’ve worked if we could’ve guaranteed that infected persons could either be prevented from entering the country or quarantined upon arrival. But given the gestation period of the virus, it was impossible to know who had been infected until they started showing symptoms — which could’ve happened well after they reëntered the country and before a travel shutdown occured. You can’t guarantee that shutting down travel would’ve completely prevented the virus from hitting American shores — or stopped it from being as deadly as it became.

Every person who fought travel restrictions is directly responsible for the spread.

So, then, is every person who fought mask requirements, shutdown mandates, and every other measure meant to prevent further spread of the virus in the name of public health — and that includes Donald Trump. If’n you wanna play the blame game, you’re only going to get a tie at best.

What the hell nonsense are you on about?

Read the comment again, but this time commit yourself to understanding me instead of misunderstanding me.

Less cases to spread reduces chances to spread.

One case would’ve been enough, as I’ve outlined above.

We’ll never know how much the impact could have been reduced.

We’ll never know how much better it could’ve been with a competent leader in the Oval Office, either. Ain’t life a bitch.

You went from it’s fact to exaggerating.

Oh, no, he suggested injecting disinfectants into people as a potential treatment for COVID — that’s a stone cold fact. My characterization of how he said it is the exaggeration/paraphrasing.

Or else people will call you out for your false quotation.

oooh i’m so fucking scared someone get me my security blankey and a flashlight~

Quite foolish AND hypocritical to preach about truth while making up quotes.

I didn’t “make up quotes”, you dipshit, but I should’ve expected you to commit to misunderstanding concepts like exaggeration and paraphrasing.

I’ve grown tired of dissecting your fictional narrative.

Ah, so it’s both. ????

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Re:

So every major not-right-leaning news outlet declared the virus natural with no evidence at all, was right.
But saying the virus came from a lab, leaving out the long winded “every existing piece of evidence show that” is wrong.
I see.

“ And by the time we shut down travel from other countries, the virus could’ve still made it into the United States.”
So reducing the number of potential infection vectors is a bad thing?

The President attempted to close off the source country, and known hot spots.
Using your logic the Biden administration shouldn’t have halted travel from India because we can still get if from other places?

“ prevented from entering the country or quarantined upon arrival.”
The logical progression is to first close travel. Then allow carefully controlled travel to commence with testing and quarantine.

“So, then, is every person who fought mask requirements, shutdown mandates, and every other measure meant to prevent further spread of the virus in the name of public health”

Masks yes.
Shutdowns no.
A person can support use Without the draconian requirements placed on it. It a business wants to be open to mask users that’s their choice. If they want to be mask free that’s their private business choice.
If I use a mask and you don’t that’s your choice. Be happy, be dead. Idgaf!

“Read the comment again, but this time commit yourself to understanding me instead of misunderstanding me.”
~~”But just like we can’t know how the events of 9/11 and its immediate aftermath would’ve turned out had Al Gore been POTUS”
Your making such a statement suggests you believe there would have been a difference if Gore was President. It is unlikely the 72 hour period would have been any different no matter what President or failed candidate was in office. Ever.

You’re right, we’ll never know. But some points are so asinine in unlikelihood to not be worth bringing up.

“We’ll never know how much better it could’ve been with a competent leader in the Oval Office, either. Ain’t life a bitch.”
The difference is much of Clinton’s potentials we’re Obama hold-overs.
Swim flue was A disaster. So we have a logical example to base a conclusion on.

“Oh, no, he suggested injecting disinfectants into people as a potential treatment for COVID — that’s a stone cold fact…”
How many direct transcripts do I have to post to show you it simply didn’t happen.

Once again here’s the full quote
“So, I’m going to ask Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful”

It was Chris Jackson who made up the claim tweeting

“Tonight the far left seems more upset about a report suggesting a former Treasury Secretary is advising @JoeBiden on economic policy than the fact that @realDonaldTrump urged Americans to inject themselves with disinfectant.”

Which he didn’t. Never happened. Yet you continue to push that.

“I didn’t “make up quotes”, you dipshit, but I should’ve expected you to commit to misunderstanding concepts like exaggeration and paraphrasing.”
You invented a quote Trump never said. Placing it in quotes gives it factual meaning. This is how misinformation spreads.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20

Last reply to you on this; I’ve better things to do — like jerk off to softcore Skinemax porn.

So every major not-right-leaning news outlet declared the virus natural with no evidence at all, was right.

Nope.

But saying the virus came from a lab, leaving out the long winded “every existing piece of evidence show that” is wrong.

Also nope. And I’ll tell you why.

The evidence of the origin of COVID-19 thus far may lean in the direction of a laboratory, but that evidence is far from conclusive. The chances of COVID-19 being a lab-developed virus are equally as likely as the chances of COVID-19 being a natural mutation/evolution of a coronavirus. Neither theory is explicitly right or wrong until we have more evidence that proves one true and the other false.

But until we have that evidence, acting like the lab theory is a certified fact as if you have the omniscience of God Herself is a fool’s move. Don’t be a (bigger) fool, Lodos.

So reducing the number of potential infection vectors is a bad thing?

I don’t respond to otherwording.

The President attempted to close off the source country, and known hot spots.

Even if he had succeeded in a timely fashion, the chances of his being able to wholly prevent COVID-19 from reaching the States were small enough that the effort would likely not have been enough to stop the disease from arriving here.

Using your logic the Biden administration shouldn’t have halted travel from India because we can still get if from other places?

India is the current epicenter of the Delta variant of the virus; it makes sense to prevent travel from (and to) the hotspot of a deadlier/more contagious strain of COVID-19. But considering how the Delta variant is becoming a dominant strain here in the States, that travel stoppage is something of a “too little, too late” scenario.

The logical progression is to first close travel. Then allow carefully controlled travel to commence with testing and quarantine.

Yes. But by the time the closing of travel happened, the virus had already reached the states. It was ostensibly the right move — but it was still too little, too late.

It a business wants to be open to mask users that’s their choice. If they want to be mask free that’s their private business choice.

Of course you don’t give a fuck about public health, given you’re a libertarian. You probably think the idea of “public health” is a conspiracy meant to rob us of our freedom to make other people sick for shits’n’giggles.

If I use a mask and you don’t that’s your choice. Be happy, be dead. Idgaf!

Again: Of course you don’t give a fuck about public health.

The reason mask mandates and business shutdowns happened was because Americans are, by and large, a stubborn group of people who have been taught by American culture to be rugged individualists instead of part of a broader community. The only way to keep the assholes from infecting even more people was to mandate mask usage indoors and shut down non-essential businesses. “IDGAF” assholes like you likely would’ve made the pandemic even worse if you’d gotten your way vis-á-vis making masks wholly optional and barring shutdowns from ever happening.

Next time you say “IDGAF” in this context, append “about people dying and getting sick”. It’s far more accurate — and honest.

Your making such a statement suggests you believe there would have been a difference if Gore was President.

There absolutely would’ve been. What difference that would be is knowable only to a omniscient supernatural deity that can see all possible timelines.

The difference is much of Clinton’s potentials [were] Obama hold-overs. [Swine flu] was [a] disaster. So we have a logical example to base a conclusion on.

Per Wikipedia and based on the CDC’s own data: “From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, the CDC estimates there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3 – 89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086 – 402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868 – 18,306) in the United States due to the virus.”

Also per Wikipedia and based on CDC data: “More than 33.5 million confirmed cases have been reported since January 2020, resulting in more than 600,000 deaths, the most of any country, and the twentieth-highest per capita worldwide. As many infections have gone undetected, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that, as of March 2021, there are a total 114.6 million infections in the United States, or more than a third of the total population. The U.S. has about one-fifth of the world’s confirmed cases and deaths.”

Compared to COVID-19, the swine flu epidemic was handled far better. I wonder if that has something to do with a competent leader being in the Oval Office instead of an elderly game show host. ????

How many direct transcripts do I have to post to show you it simply didn’t happen.

You can keep posting the transcript, but you’re forgetting the context that he said this directly after a presentation that pointed out how household disinfectants — including, yes, bleach — were effective at killing the COVID-19 virus. The leap in logic from the “bleach is effective at stopping the COVID virus” presentation to Trump mentioning the injection of disinfectants into people’s lungs meaning “injecting bleach into people” isn’t that hard to make, especially since Trump is…not exactly a complex and nuanced thinker, to put it nicely.

You invented a quote Trump never said. Placing it in quotes gives it factual meaning. This is how misinformation spreads.

“You invented a false quote”, he says. “You gave it meaning”, he says. “You’re the cause of all misinformation,” he says.

See how exaggeration and paraphrasing works? No, of course you don’t, because you’re a fucking idiot. And I don’t like to use that word these days, so rest assured that for as much as I’m kicking myself for using it, I’m also absolutely certain that it’s the only accurate descriptor for you. Now fuck off; I’ve got porn to watch.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

“assholes like you likely would’ve made the pandemic even worse if you’d gotten your way vis-á-vis making masks wholly optional and barring shutdowns from ever happening.“

So little faith in humanity when the largest most vocal call wasn’t about using masks but being forced to.
I see a person without a mask I walk away. It’s that simple.

“Next time you say “IDGAF” in this context, append “about people dying and getting sick”. It’s far more accurate — and honest.“

Not quite. I believe in personal liberty. If you want to be stupid and go maskless and vaxless that’s your choice. I’m not going to shed my tears over it and I don’t believe anyone has the right idea o force you to protect yourself. You protect you, I protect me. My worry Bible doesn’t expand beyond my family and friends.
That’s exactly what I mean, anti-maskers want to runs around and sing Jesus protects me so be it.

Stephen T. Stone Says “porn is more important than people”.
Or
Stephen T. Stone Says ‘porn is more important than people’.
Or
Stephen T. Stone says porn is more important than people.

There’s a difference. And all three are false.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Re:

"So little faith in humanity when the largest most vocal call wasn’t about using masks but being forced to."

Because people were not only refusing to wear masks, but deliberately holding unmasked events in order to spite people calling for basic public health measures along the lines of what worked in the 1918 pandemic. This was already leaving the US vastly disproportionately affected by the virus compared to places that followed basic public health guidelines, so mandates were required.

You and your scummy sources might love to demonise science and common sense, but unfortunately sometimes people have to force you to grow up for 5 minutes so that people stop dying as much. 3,000 people die on 9/11 – right wingers call for the invasion of 2 countries, one of which wasn’t involved in the attack. 3,000 people per day die of a preventable disease- "Mommy I don’t want to wear a maassskk!". Pathetic losers, the lot of you.

"I believe in personal liberty."

Unless it’s someone in a store you’re infecting because you refuse to do the most basic thing to protect them, then they have to die for your convenience.

"My worry Bible doesn’t expand beyond my family and friends"

Which is why you have to be forced to do the right thing sometimes. A shame Trump had to kill so many people before the adults got in charge, and so many of them died thinking they were invincible until their selfish asses got infected.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Re:

Oh grow up.
“ Pathetic losers, the lot of you.”
I still use a mask after vaccination.
If you don’t want to die get the vaccine and use a mask.

Every troll I come across yelling at the unmasked I will continue to make a very public example of as I yell at them through my mask to shut the fuck up. If you don’t want to be around the maskless go somewhere else.
If you’re afraid stay aeay from the maskless.

It’s not that hard.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24 Re:

Again, with the selfish, "I’m OK so everyone else is" bullshit. The mandates aren’t for people have a choice, it’s for the poor people who have to be around selfish assholes who refuse to think of others whether they want to be or not. Just because you personally have a choice, that doesn’t extend to everybody.

Also, "stay away from the maskless" doesn’t help when they infect each other and breed new variants that your vaccine doesn’t protect against as readily.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Re:

Mince words anyway you want. Darth Cheeto went up to the podium, after his tech dept lead spoke about cleaning techniques to make shared spaces safer, clearly delusional from huffing his own farts, and mused a couple of brain turds, as if he actually had come up with some kind of brilliant and novel treatment that medical professionals would be heralding for the ages, about an internal light treatment or a cleaning of the lungs, which he then "confirmed" with the same tech guy that such studies would be happening with doctors. If what he said did not imply that ingesting a strong cleaner could some how cure or prevent covid-19, then companies like Lysol and Clorox wouldn’t have had to put out their own press releases warning people not to take their products internally, and the poison control centers wouldn’t have had a noticable increase in calls and reports of people ingesting cleaners and asking about it. The next day, that moron tried to say that he was kidding, being sarcastic, to see what the liberal media would do. I’m not sure if it’s more disgusting that tacky shithead thought he could actually come up with a medical breakthrough, or that he thought that it would be totally fine for the leader of the free world to pull some stupid prank during a presser about a virus killing thousands a day.
Also lab leak does not equate an escaped bioweapon, or even a modified virus. Also, Harvard put out a letter or statement recently saying that they avoided endorsing lab leak theories because they did not want it to become a tool for racist and conspiracy theorist at behest of Trump. That’s because they know that Trump’s behavior would make investigating China more difficult.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Re:

"Darth Cheeto went up to the podium, after his tech dept lead spoke about cleaning techniques to make shared spaces safer"

Not even that. This picture was taken shortly before he went on stage:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AA47/production/_111919534_trumpgetty2.jpg

You can almost see the hamster wheels turning in his head. A few minutes later when he was being challenged, he did what con artists often do – take an idea someone else made and present it as if he came up with it. Unfortunately, his addled, uneducated mind didn’t really understand what he read. So, he mixed up the idea of sunlight and disinfectant being used on surfaces as per the sign he was looking at, and the medical treatments being talked about by everyone else, and he combined the two in the resulting word salad.

"Also lab leak does not equate an escaped bioweapon, or even a modified virus."

Even if it did, it makes no difference to the incompetent way in which it was handled, leaving the US vastly disproportionately affected despite them having more time to prepare compared to many allies. The Trump cultists want us to believe that if China had somehow deliberately made the virus then that absolves Trump of responsibility for his failures, but it does not. In fact, you can argue that it makes things worse, since it makes it a failure to deal with an act of military aggression from a foreign power, rather than a failure to contain a naturally occurring threat.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Re:

The only people mincing words are anti-trump Democrats (and a handful of republicans who were voted out or will be).
It’s quite clear what he said.

“ Lysol and Clorox wouldn’t have had to put out their own press releases warning people not to take their products internally”
They did so when the Democrats and their press buddies completely rearranged a big mix of words. Some here like to talk about never knowing, well, I really wonder how many of the actual morons would have swallowed bleach had MSNBCNN not spread the lie that he said to do so. Because there are morons who did everything they were told Trump said to do! The number would likely be zero but we simply will never know.

“ Also lab leak does not equate an escaped bioweapon,…”
I never said it did
“or even a modified virus.”
Documentation says it is.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24 Re:

"Documentation says it is."

Citation needed.

Not that it actually matters to the current response to the pandemic, but I’m interested as to your specific source of misinformation in this matter. Because what I’ve seen say that it’ s a possibility but not conclusive. Even if it did escape from a Wuhan lab, my understanding is that it’s not confirmed that it was modified by humans.

But, hey, whatever it takes for you to deflect attention from a person who no matter what he actually claimed in a specific press conference, no matter who originated the virus and how, botched the response to the pandemic to the point where you’re still the worst affected country despite major outbreaks in countries with much larger populations (yeah, we can’t trust China’s figures but that’s not the only data).

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

"The source became largely irrelevant to the broader fight against the pandemic because…well, because there was a pandemic going on and we needed to care more about people dying than about where the virus came from"

Exactly. Which is why while the smooth brained types were praising Trump’s half-assed attempts to shut down some travel from China, the rest of us were concerned about the infections coming in from Europe. Murdoch fans seem to think this meant that people were being mean to Trump because he was finally taking action against something he was claiming didn’t exist up until that point.

A year later, and some people are still too stupid to grasp this… Once again, I’m glad adults are back in charge.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Thank You Doctor

Oh thank you doctor no PhD. As former CDC director Dr. Redfield stated we were in the early stages treating the virus like a naturally occurring SARS like virus. This caused us to grossly under estimate how easily this virus spread from human to human in the early stages and hopelessly put us on the back foot for the rest of the pandemic.

Furthermore, we could have earlier put pressure on China to come clean. The information on the creation of the virus could have been used to create treatments far quicker rather than starting at square 1.

You don’t really think out your arguments do you?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

As former CDC director Dr. Redfield stated we were in the early stages treating the virus like a naturally occurring SARS like virus. This caused us to grossly under estimate how easily this virus spread from human to human in the early stages and hopelessly put us on the back foot for the rest of the pandemic.

And knowing it wasn’t like the SARS virus — that fact would’ve made Trump a competent leader?

we could have earlier put pressure on China to come clean. The information on the creation of the virus could have been used to create treatments far quicker rather than starting at square 1.

Can you guaran-fuckin’-tee — with the absolute precision and supernatural omniscience of God Herself — that knowing about the exact origin of the virus at any point before…oh, let’s say February 2020…would have indisputably and unquestionably changed the course of the pandemic so it would be less deadly?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Can you say with the same certainty it wouldn’t.

Statistically having fewer infected enter the country would reduce the number of spreaders, and thus reduce the spread.

The comment “ we were in the early stages treating the virus like a naturally occurring SARS like virus” is part of the issue. Our President had information stating that the source was a laboratory. Even without verification the very reporting of it should cause a second line of inquiry at the lowest level of effort. Trump continually instructed, guided, and ordered, further follow up, and to approach it as he had seen.
He was ignored continuously.

Failures in containing the virus are exactly because the government bureaucracy made it possible to ignore him.
Trump didn’t fail, the bureaucracy failed to do what they were told.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Can you say with the same certainty it wouldn’t.

I’m not God, nor do I believe I’m God, so I can’t. But I can take educated guesses.

While knowing the true origin of COVID-19 and shutting down travel might have prevented COVID-19 from becoming a bigger pandemic within the United States, it’s equally likely that the pandemic still would’ve been as deadly as it was/is even with that knowledge and those restrictions. By the time the first case of COVID was confirmed in the States, it’s entirely possible (and incredibly likely) that the disease could’ve spread exponentially before that case was confirmed. Given the gestation time of the virus and the fact that some people could be asymptomatic carriers, shutting down travel might have been wholly ineffective in stopping the virus from spreading in the U.S.

Our President had information stating that the source was a laboratory.

Incomplete and unconfirmed information, since the source of the virus has yet to be conclusively proven (and you’d do well to remember that, lest you look like a brainwashed Breitbart barfbag when you assert the lab theory as a certified fact).

Trump continually instructed, guided, and ordered, further follow up, and to approach it as he had seen.

No, he didn’t. He sat on his hands and kept saying “the virus will go away” (no that’s not a fucking direct quote you pedantic dipshit) until he couldn’t ignore the fact that people were dying of COVID and he had to actually be a leader instead of a celebrity.

He was ignored continuously.

Remind me, who was in charge of the federal government from the 20th of January 2020 and the 20th of January 2021? Because I don’t think it was Democrats, and I’m pretty sure Trump installed enough loyalists in the government to ensure that his wishes would be granted.

Failures in containing the virus are exactly because the government bureaucracy made it possible to ignore him.

Oh, I see now! The failed response to COVID-19 in the United States wasn’t Trump’s fault for being an incompentent leader — it was everyone else’s fault for not immediately bowing down to his every whim no matter what and making sure he could do whatever to whomever for any reason whatsoever! Gee, why didn’t anyone tell me this before~? ????

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

"He sat on his hands and kept saying “the virus will go away”"

Well, eventually. Before that he was flipping between calling it a hoax from either China or the Democrats. He didn’t even try banning flights from China until Italy was shutting down their entire country, and that was when he switched to pretending it was going to magically bypass the US.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Logical Fallacy

"Can you guaran-fuckin’-tee — with the absolute precision and supernatural omniscience of God Herself — that knowing about the exact origin of the virus at any point before…oh, let’s say February 2020…would have indisputably and unquestionably changed the course of the pandemic so it would be less deadly?"

Appeal to Possibility fallacy. You do this alot.

Your argument its that its possible having the information might not have helped, no matter how improbable, therefore it wouldn’t have helped. I don’t waste my time with such logical fallacies.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Government Partnership With Facebooke

"Please cite"

"We wanted to flag this YouTube video because it misleads community members about elections or other civic processes and misrepresents the safety and security of mail-in ballots.” ~Californai Secretary of State Office to YouTube.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/ca-state-officials-big-tech/

YouTube took down the video.

At the time Judicial watch and The California Secretary of State’s Office was engaged in legal proceedings about voter roll clean up, with a lower court decision on appeal with an ruling expected in a month. Judicial Watch ultimately won the legal action, proving the validity of the video that The California Secretary of State called misinformation.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I skimmed through that article and got the gist of it. Can you show me where it says the office of the California Secretary of State, or a duly designated representative thereof, ordered the removal of those videos?

I’m not saying the removals are entirely on the up-and-up. I’m not saying this looks good for that office, either. But I didn’t see any orders, threats, or other language that looks like the office (or any representatives thereof) demanded the videos be taken down.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Moving Goal Posts

"a Twitter rule against saying racial slurs doesn’t have the force of government backing it up, you dipshit"

Now "force of government back it up" has to mean explicitly ordered the removal. Oh you are too clever by half. There is a record of what you say and your constant goal post moving shows why this comment section is such trash.

The legal definition of a state action which makes big tech a state actor

"f the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action" ~Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, (1982)

As usual you don’t have a legal leg to stand on as you again champion lawless vigilantism. Your repeated defense of illegal acts is no different than someone claiming physical assault is justified because you didn’t like what the other person said.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Now "force of government back it up" has to mean explicitly ordered the removal.

It always meant that. A government agent can point out alleged misinformation to a platform, but the platform is under no legal obligation to act upon that notice. The government can’t demand a platform remove the speech because of the First Amendment, after all.

The legal definition of a state action which makes big tech a state actor[:]

“[i]f the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action”

As I said: A platform isn’t obliged to act in this situation. (If anything, a refusal to act would be legal, moral, and ethical.) But if the platform receives the notice, judges the situation outside of a lens of “the government sent us this”, and believes the speech violates the rules of the platform regardless of who reported the speech, I fail to see the overall problem other than the optics. (And the optics are bad, that I will admit.)

you don’t have a legal leg to stand on as you again champion lawless vigilantism

If I thought what happened in the link you provided was censorship, I’d be the first one to say so. But what I saw was, at worst, a situation where the government shouldn’t have stepped in to inform a platform of alleged misinformation — an overstepping of boundaries, sure, but nothing that outwardly reeks of coerced moderation (i.e., censorship).

Your repeated defense of illegal acts is no different than someone claiming physical assault is justified because you didn’t like what the other person said.

The only justifiable violence is violence in direct defense of one’s own self and others. All other violence is bullshit.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Wrong!

"A government agent can point out alleged misinformation to a platform, but the platform is under no legal obligation to act upon that notice."

No the government cannot. That is illegal. Its called conspiracy against rights. It is illegal for an agent of the government to encourage a private party to deny any person a constitutionally protected right.

"But if the platform receives the notice, judges the situation outside of a lens of “the government sent us this”, and believes the speech violates the rules of the platform regardless of who reported the speech, I fail to see the overall problem other than the optics. (And the optics are bad, that I will admit.)"

No the platform should deny the request in all circumstances because the conspiracy itself is illegal. They should then report the request to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

"The only justifiable violence is violence in direct defense of one’s own self and others. All other violence is bullshit."

Violence is not the point. Its engaging in an overt illegal act. Conspiring with state against to take down speech is illegal. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in jail. It is not justified regardless of the truthiness of the speech.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Well, it would mean less bans, less removal of content, and more filtering and non-destructive moderating. "

No. It would mean that almost every company running a social platform would decide not to allow comments at all because the overhead would eat the profit margins.

In brief, if you put that burden on platform owners then they aren’t magically going to create ten times as many jobs as they have running the rest of their company. They’ll abandon that venue as unprofitable.

If you wanted an iron-clad guarantee that the only companies able to allow upload of content or comments will be Google, Youtube, Amazon and so…this is the way to go about it; by raising the requirements until only the major actors can meet it.

"…most web services would adopt the more common user-based moderation of tagging and flagging (like this site has). "

You do realize if section 230 is dropped Mike has warned repeatedly that this very site is one of those which will either have to shut down the comment field altogether or move the site offshore?

What you ask for is, in reality, this; "Let’s raise the burden of moderation to the point where no one can afford to host anything worthy of moderation."

The real-life analogy would be for a municipality to demand that no bar would be allowed a license unless they possessed a security detail on the level with that provided to POTUS. The result of which would be the return of the speakeasy and gin mill.

"I would HOPE more sites opted to be less restrictive…"

Not when the law would suddenly force them into the choice of either spending more money than the site brings in or have said site devolve into an 8chan cesspool no sane person would want to visit.

Here’s what’s going to happen if laws like this keep passing; The open internet will have only two or three actors still running forums where people still bother to post, and the only comments allowed on those will be the kind which literally can not offend anyone.

Every other site which allows comments and has a community will be on the deep darknet where government can’t reach and site owners retain their ability to moderate the comment field.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I would HOPE more sites opted to be less restrictive…

They look ate the likes of 4 chan, 8kun, BitChute, etc. and decide that being less restrictive is the same as downsizing, as they can see a large part of their user base leaving for more moderated platforms.

Less restrictive platforms are out there, so why do you not make use of them, rather than demanding that the more popular platforms become less restrictive.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“ Less restrictive platforms are out there, so why do you not make use of them”
Not the ones you suggested but others.
Never got into the whole Twitter thing. Always struck me as going backwards to shorten conversation to a few words.

I prefer daily motion myself but never had a problem with YouTube. I like how YouTube filters, most of the time.
There’s some legitimate concerns in the monetary system but generally a good service.

bc I kind of boring. Political commentary and pet videos. It’s like a Republican version of CNN or Cumulus.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“…so why in the hell have you jumped on the moderation is bad bandwagon? Is it because you want all sites to support the republican party?“

Because I draw a line at deletion.
It’s not political for me. See post below re That One Guy. Without a physical presence there’s nowhere to stand outside and say this is wrong.
So when something is deleted, aka censored aka removed from accessibility, it’s really gone from reaching the target. Gone completely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

So when something is deleted, aka censored aka removed from accessibility, it’s really gone from reaching the target.

You are not entitled to be listened to, or force you views onto other people, which is what the above suggests you want, as well as you statement that you can’t stand outside twitter and shout at its users.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

So, he can’t tell the difference between private property and the public sidewalk. Or, he does recognise it but is too stupid to understand how the differences apply online.

He’ll probably tell you if he starts getting information from people aligned with Laura Loomer and her hilarious failure at attacking Twitter, but he will tell you that he’s not interested in that sort of reality.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Laura Loomer? I had to look her up.

I recognise that he difference. In the physical world there is redress. With minimal limitations you have the right to be heard.
The internet, doesn’t offer that at sites that delete.

Everyone very much has the right to be heard. Inclusive in the right to free speech. If you’re silenced inside stand outside.
That right is missing online.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

"Laura Loomer? I had to look her up"

I find that hard to believe, given her presence on the sites you claim to take as gospel, but OK.

"The internet, doesn’t offer that at sites that delete."

No, they offer millions of alternatives, including the ability to set uo your own at zero cost. What it doesn’t guarantee is an audience, but then then the audience seeing you rant outside the place you just got kicked out of for being a drunken asshole is not going to take you seriously, so there’s not a real difference.

"Everyone very much has the right to be heard."

Yes, and if the reaction is "get this asshole out of my face", you have no right to override that decision.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

If Twitter gives you the boot, you can go to Parler or Gab or whatever. If they give you the boot, you can start your own fucking site/service and shout your inanity there. People may not visit your site/service, but as I said above, you’re not entitled to be heard and they’re not obliged to listen.

The First Amendment protects your rights to speak freely and associate with whomever you want. It doesn’t give you the right to make others listen. It doesn’t give you the right to make others give you access to an audience. And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Being denied that privilege isn’t censorship.

Portent says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Yes it is Censorship

" And it doesn’t give you the right to make a personal soapbox out of private property you don’t own. Nobody is entitled to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else. Being denied that privilege isn’t censorship."

Yes it is censorship.

"censored adjective

ˈsen(t)-sərd
Definition of censored
suppressed, altered, or deleted as objectionable : subjected to censorship"

Objectionable is the very word used in section 230. Just because something is private does not mean that it isn’t censorship. You are again moving the goal posts. You begin with the 1st Amendment doesn’t limit private acts to a private act is not censorship.

You continually move the goal posts from a rational argument to an irrational non-sensical linguistically false argument.

You have the ever growing circle of conspiracy where you continually build upon you past speculation as if it were fact and speculate further. That is a sign of mental instability FYI.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Masks aren’t there to protect you, you raging moron. Which is why it’s been such a hard sell – protecting others isn’t a thing some people care about, hence the mandates.

I look forward to the day when the risks and consequences of COVID are as low as the standard flu, but until then selfish idiots creating more delta variants risk us all

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...