Lying Liar George Santos Just As Wrong About Section 230 As He Is About His Own Biography
from the if-that-really-is-your-name dept
Rep. George Santos remains a fascinating study in how far you can get if you have zero shame about just making shit up constantly. By now you must know his backstory (er… stories) and how basically nothing he seems to say checks out.
And now he’s actually trying to get legislation passed. Specifically he’s announced a bill to “Amend Section 230 to Remove Protections from Social Media Companies.” The bill is HR 2635 and is officially called the “Social Media Accountability Act 2023.”
Of course, he hasn’t released the full text of the bill, because why would he want to do that? So all we have to go on right now is the press release, which seems to says:
Under the “Social Media Accountability Act 2023,” Title 47 of the U.S. Code Section 230 would be amended. Protections would be removed from Social Media Companies, making it unlawful for such companies to de-platform US citizens based on the social, political, or religious status of such citizens unless there was a policy violation of the company.
So… this is either unconstitutional or it is useless. The specifics of the language in the bill will determine that. If it goes against someone’s right of association under the 1st Amendment, that would make the bill unconstitutional.
Of course, it seems like they’ve tried to add an out to this, which is that it says “unless there was a policy violation of the company.” So… if the policy is “no Nazis on the platform” which one wins? Do you have to platform Nazis because of their “political status” or can you deplatform them for violating your policies?
Either way, this bill is silly performative nonsense. Contrary to popular belief among the most aggrieved, victimized MAGA class, literally no social media platform is targeting anyone for their “social, political, or religious status.” They are only deplatformed if they break the rules (something which the description of this bill says will continue to be allowed).
I know we keep saying it, but no trust and safety team cares about your political or religious views. They just want you to stop being an asshole on their platform. People were not banned for their views, they were banned for doing bad things on the platform. That lying George Santos’ party currently has no shame at all and continues to spew absolute bullshit all the time means that they may, on the margins, be hit with more moderation. But that’s on them for being willing to constantly lie.
Anyway, in some ways it’s good to see George Santos take up this issue, because it against highlights the low moral character of those who seek to undermine Section 230’s important protections.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, george santos, nazis, section 230
Comments on “Lying Liar George Santos Just As Wrong About Section 230 As He Is About His Own Biography”
once a liar, always a liar! they just get worse trying to cover up the previous one! how the hell people are stupid enough to put these self- interested fuckers in office is beyond me!
Re:
In the case of Santos, I’m not even sure how the election can be considered fair. At this point, it seems clear that the people who voted for him didn’t actually vote for him, they voted for a fictional character who just happens to share his name and face.
Re: Re:
A free market is only a free market when participants can inform themselves of the facts about their options, and have full ability to choose between them.
Same requirements go for a free election.
Republicans work to destroy these in both cases.
Not really happening much at all any more now that Parler, the biggest source of that, just shit itself down.
Re:
Though I guess Twatter #2 is trying to pick up the slack by instituting such policies not found in its predecesor.
The would be dictator mind in action, in the more I can enable my bullies to push my policies, the sooner everybody who disagrees will be beaten into submission.
I would agree with that until Elon took over Twitter. I feel like he will de platform people if they don’t agree with his view in many cases.
Re:
Well, something Elon doesn’t like is not inherently political. Those are personal “reasons” he uses.
Re: Re:
If you treated it like that, then anything political could be called personal. Not sure where the distinction is between personal and political but he is definitely making some political decisions.
Re:
The ‘bill’ doesn’t make it illegal to deplatform someone because you don’t like them, and all Elon has to say, since it’s his private company and rules are what he says they are, is that he’ll throw you off because he thinks they smell bad.
Not only would that remain legal, but also not a single fanboi in this vicinity would offer a syllable of criticism for him doing so.
“he hasn’t released the full text of the bill”
A long time ago in a reality far far away … legislators wrote legislation, debated same .. blah blah becomes a law.
Some time ago in the recent past, legislators rubber stamped stuff written by lobbyists and PACs.
Now it seems our elected officials can’t do much at all other than lie about everything.
Re: It gets worse
When did it become Popular to Hire representatives, that had no IDEA of the laws, regulations of this country. Let alone HOW and what the Constitution says and is interpreted.
Why are these people NOT understanding the Constitution and HOW its supposed to work EVEN tho they Pledged to protect it.
This will only come to, Protect the children. But does he KNOW how many federal and state laws Protect the children?
The only problem is HOW the gov. DOE IT. And they have Never found or even looked at better ways.
“So… this is either unconstitutional or it is useless”
Why can’t it be both?
I call bull shit. My counter argument: Truth Social.
😀
Re: my firstr thought also
Yes, that was my first thought also. The identification of a first choice should not be read as disparaging Parler (which is otherwise eliminating itself), or Gettr, or Daily Stormer, or Infowars.
Re:
No, no, they don’t count for… reasons. Apparently, they can do whatever they want, but platforms magically lose all their rights to moderate and control their own platform once they pass some unspecified level of popularity.
At least, that’s what I hear from people angry that mainstream platforms don’t usually let Nazis chase away advertising revenue, but do allow advertiser-friendly LBTGQ+ communities to exist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Been There Done That
Civil rights laws have not been found unconstitutional on the basis of freedom of association. To the contrary, courts have forced some groups to accept members from a protected class. Constitutional arguments for freedom of association were rejected, especially if membership requirements were not explicitly listed up front.
Looking at recent cases which required religious organizations to accept those from outside the faith, the law would probably survive scrutiny if it had a “platform required” policy. Unless a significant supreme court decision is issued, this is the model can continue to enjoy legal support.
Re:
I suppose, in a way, fascism is a religion.
Re: Re:
People like Koby so desperately want “Being an Asshole” a protected class such that they can spew their hate garbage anywhere without consequences.
Re: Do you smell toast burning
That’s honestly the best you got?
Re:
Political status is not a protected class, and I know of no instances where a platform has even been alleged to discriminate based on social status.
Re:
Imagine still being straight and cis and male in a post-Trump world where everyone has had enough of the damage you inflict on civil society simply by existing
He wants re-election.
He’s got no chance.
But he also wants those sweet, sweet reichbucks coming into his campaign, and we know he’ll do anything for money.
Thus…this load of crap masquerading as potential law.
The Right complains so loudly about “fake news” and then eats it up like it is candy. The fact that this fucker is still in office says a lot about the GOP.
Re: "Fake News"
The Right, in the person of Ronald Wilson Reagan, INVENTED fake news in 1987, when he unilaterally abolished the “Fairness Doctrine”, which required all broadcast outlets to offer equal time for opposing viewpoints. If it were still in place, partisan echo chambers like Fox News and MSNBC would not EXIST, and it’s likely that our politics would be more civil, at least to some extent.
Re: Re: technology changes
Not exactly. The fairness doctrine was based on the scarcity of broadcast spectrum space, and the need for a license to use the same.
Services on cable would not be subject to the scarcity and resulting licensure requirements. Faux News and similar echo chambers exist on cable, at least for the most part. It follows that fairness would not apply.
Re: Re: Re:
“The fairness doctrine was based on the scarcity of broadcast spectrum space, and the need for a license to use the same.”
There was a bit more to it, or maybe I misunderstood your post.
“Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.”
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine
Re: Re: The Perils of "Fairness" in One Simple Question
Let’s say that a news network aired a segment about LGBTQ civil rights that was in favor of acknowledging and protecting those rights. Under the Fairness Doctrine, that same network would also have to air a segment about LGBTQ civil rights that attacked those rights. Yes or no: Do you believe that would be “fair” to the people whose rights are the subject of that “debate”?
Lying Liars
“Rep. George Santos remains a fascinating study in how far you can get if you have zero shame about just making shit up constantly.”