Congress Wants A Magic Pony: Get Rid Of Section 230, Perfect Moderation, And Only Nice People Allowed Online
from the the-land-of-magical-thinking dept
The internet is the wild west! Kids are dying! AI is scary and bad! Algorithms! Addiction! If only there was more liability and we could sue more often, internet companies would easily fix everything. Once, an AI read my mind, and it’s scary. No one would ever bring a vexatious lawsuit ever. Wild west! The “like” button is addictive and we should be able to sue over it.
Okay, you’re basically now caught up with the key points raised in yesterday’s House Energy & Commerce hearing on sunsetting Section 230. If you want to watch the nearly three hours of testimony, you can do so here, though I wouldn’t recommend it:
It went like most hearings about the internet, where members of Congress spend all their time publicly displaying their ignorance and confusion about how basically everything works.
But the basic summary is that people are mad about “bad stuff” on the internet, and lots of people seem to falsely think that if there were more lawsuits, internet companies would magically make bad stuff disappear. That, of course, elides all sorts of important details, nuances, tradeoffs, and more.
First of all, bad stuff did not begin with the internet. Blaming internet companies for not magically making bad stuff disappear is an easy out for moralizing politicians.
The two witnesses pushing for sunsetting Section 230 talked about how some people were ending up in harmful scenarios over and over again. They talked about the fact that this meant that companies were negligent and clearly “not doing enough.” They falsely insisted that there were no other incentives for companies to invest in tools and people to improve safety on platforms, ignoring the simple reality that if your platform is synonymous with bad stuff happening, it’s bad for business.
User growth slows, advertisers go away. If you’re an app, Apple or Google may ban you. The media trashes you. There are tons of incentives out there for companies to deal with dangerous things on their platforms, which neither the “pro-sunset” witnesses nor the congressional reps seemed willing to acknowledge.
But the simple reality is that no matter how many resources and tools are put towards protecting people, some people are going to do bad things or be put in unsafe positions. That’s humanity. That’s society. Thinking that if we magically threaten to sue companies that it will fix things is not just silly, it’s wrong.
The witnesses in favor of sunsetting 230 also tried to play this game. They insisted that frivolous lawsuits would never be filed because that would be against legal ethics rules (Ha!), while also insisting that they need to get discovery from companies to be able to prove that their cases aren’t frivolous. This, of course, ignores the fact that merely the threat of litigation can lead companies to fold. If the threat includes the extraordinarily expensive and time consuming (and soul-destroying) process of discovery, it can be absolutely ruinous for companies.
Thankfully, this time, there was one witness who was there who could speak up about that: Kate Tummarello from Engine (disclosure: we’ve worked with Kate and Engine in the past to create our Startup Trail startup policy simulation game and Moderator Mayhem, detailing the challenges of content moderation, both of which demonstrate why the arguments from those pushing for sunsetting 230 are disconnected from reality).
Kate’s written testimony is incredibly thorough. Her spoken testimony (not found in her written testimony, but can be seen in the video at around 34:45) was incredibly moving. She spoke from the heart about a very personal situation she faced in losing a pregnancy at 22 weeks and relying on online forums and groups to survive the “emotional trauma” of such a situation. And, especially at a time when there is a very strong effort to criminalize aspects of women’s health care, the very existence of such communities online can be a real risk and liability.
The other witnesses and the reps asking questions just kept prattling on about “harms” that had to be stopped online, without really acknowledging that for about half of the panel, they would consider the groups that Kate relied on through one of the most difficult moments in her life as a “harm” where liability should be there, allowing people to sue whoever hosts or runs such groups.
It’s clear that the general narrative of the “techlash” has taken all of the oxygen out of the room, disallowing thoughtful or nuanced conversations on the matter.
But what became clear at this hearing, yet again, is that Democrats think (falsely) that removing Section 230 will lead to some magic wonderland where internet companies remove “bad” information, like election denials, disinformation, and eating disorder content, but leave up “good” information, like information about abortions, voting info, and news. While Republicans think (falsely) that removing Section 230 will let their supporters post racial slurs without consequence, but encourage social media companies to remove “pro-terrorist” content and sex trafficking.
Oh, and also, AI is bad and scary and will kill us all. Also, big tech is evil.
The reality is a lot more complicated. AI tools are actually incredibly important in enabling good trust & safety practices that help limit access to truly damaging content and raise up more useful and important content. Removing Section 230 won’t make companies any better at stopping bad people from being bad or things like “cyberbullying”. This came up a lot in the discussion, even as at least one rep got the kid safety witness on the panel to finally admit that most cyberbullying doesn’t violate any law and is protected under the First Amendment.
Removing Section 230 would give people a kind of litigator’s veto. If you threaten a lawsuit over a feature, some content, or an algorithm recommendation you don’t like, smaller companies will feel pressured to remove it to avoid the risk of costly endless litigation.
It wouldn’t do much to harm “big tech,” though, since they have their buildings full of lawyers, snf large trust & safety teams empowered by tools they spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing. They can handle the litigation. It’s everyone else who suffers. The smaller sites. The decentralized social media sites. The small forums. The communities that are so necessary to folks like Kate when she faced her own tragic situation.
But none of that seemed to matter much to Congress, who just wants to enable ambulance chasing lawyers to sue Google and Meta. They heard a story about a kid who had an eating disorder, and they’re sure it’s because Instagram told them to. It’s not realistic.
The real victims of this rush to sunset Section 230 will be all the people, like Kate, and also like tons of kids looking for their community, or using the internet to deal with various challenges online.
Congress wants a magic pony. And, in the process, they’re going to do a ton of harm. Magic ponies don’t exist. Congress should deal in the land of reality.
Filed Under: algorithms, congress, content moderation, house energy & commerce committee, Kate Tummarello, liability, section 230
Comments on “Congress Wants A Magic Pony: Get Rid Of Section 230, Perfect Moderation, And Only Nice People Allowed Online”
I also suggest that anyone behaving non kid friendly way in public be quickly removed.
I mean if we are going to hold the internet to a standard, we need to hold everyone in public to that standard right?
Re:
Don’t give them ideas!
wish list
Before working on Section 230, Perfect Moderation, And Only Nice People Allowed Online, why not focus on goals that would matter more:
1) require that legislators have at least an IQ above room temperature
2) get us back to having a legitimate Supreme Court
Re:
Doubt both will happen, sadly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: 00102800
3
Re:
I’ve been voting as hard as I can. Doesn’t seem to have helped.
Once More:
I think, they’re pulling a Batman gambit, mainly cause they’re using minorities & small websites as pawns, because if what Leif K-Brooks said is true: “and while some of them are much larger companies with much greater resources, “they all have their breaking point somewhere.”
Then it may mean they’re relying on acceptable collateral damage.
I apologize if I’m overusing this. 😔
Re:
Yes, you are. It was stupid the first time you said it and repeating it every gorram time doesn’t make it any more sensible.
Yet again for emphasis: The only tech companies that will come out ahead should 230 be killed are Google and Meta, who will just have had all their competition destroyed and the legal landscape shaped such that no possible competition can ever rise in the future.
Trying to ‘get’ Google and Meta by killing 230 would be like trying to ‘get’ Walmart by writing up a law that makes it illegal to start or run a grocery store without first having a city’s worth of employees, ‘counter-productive’ would be putting it mildly.
Oh look, another performative hearing designed to stir up emotions rather than meaningfully work toward something useful.
Must be a day that ends in “-y”.
Who rules
well, Congress has tremendous discretionary power in thousands of areas; if one distrusts their ultimate judgment on Section 230, why trust Congress on any other issue?
Re:
Dude, bitching about the government is the American national pastime. And they have an approval rating only slightly higher than their shoe size. Who do you think trusts them, exactly?
How many of these idiots also (rightly) ridiculed and condemned the concept of a “social credit score” when implemented overseas?
Can we kick bald-faced hypocrites off the internet instead?
Re:
Or, “Is there enough political will to implement Ranked Choice Voting like in several European countries?”
Yes, I know it will not solve everything, but handing a little more power to the people is NEVER a bad thing.
Re: Re:
We have that in NYC for primaries.
Re: Re: Re:
Good.
Now America needs to expand that sort of reform to ALL of them.
Whether there’s enough political will to do so, is another question altogether.
Man, if only there was a government organization that did all this research on tech stuff and reported its findings to Congress…
Some OFFICE that could help the Congressional Research Service…
Re:
“An office full of people who have actual expertise and knowledge in their field? KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE! OUTSIDE EXPERTISE BAD!” — the GOP for at least the past three decades, if not longer
Incentives exist, but aren't always persuasive
I’m just going to write about this:
“There are tons of incentives out there for companies to deal with dangerous things on their platforms, which neither the “pro-sunset” witnesses nor the congressional reps seemed willing to acknowledge.”
It’s true…as far as it goes. But some platforms are driven by dangerous things, e.g. Truth Social — which embraces misogny, racism, bigotry, stupidity, Christian nationalism, Nazis, and every other horrible ideology espoused by horrible people. TS exists for these things and has every reason to encourage and promote them.
Some other platforms have such deep pockets that there’s no reason for them to be persuaded by market forces — e.g. Twitter. Elon Musk, who is one of the most despicable idiots on this planet, has decided that rapists, Nazis, human traffickers, anti-vaxxers, and every other kind of vermin are all welcome. And while there’s a backlash to this, at least so far he seems willing to keep pumping money into it. So as much as I’d like for Twitter to get what it has coming, I’m not sure that it will.
Re:
Which is their prerogative, and probably also highly related to the reason for the parent company of the platform posting a $328M loss in the first fiscal quarter of 2024. There’s not a lot of money in a platform filled with those things.
Similarly to TS, if Elon wants to host trolls, morons and misogynists, he’s free to do so. Looking at Elon’s monetary track record, he seems more ready than most to cut and run if something doesn’t go his way, so it’s almost certainly just a matter of time before he does it with ExTwitter.
Re:
Getting rid of 230 won’t change that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It doesn’t change what they’re driven by, but it does change what they’re willing/able to act on. The balance of incentives matter. The Foxes, Twitters etc of the world are just as beholden to incentives as other companies.
That doesn’t mean getting rid of 230 is necessarily the answer, but not because it won’t change things, but the side effects.
Re: Re: Re:
Getting rid of 230 would result in any interactive web service that decides to keep its doors open making one of two moderation decisions to avoid legal liability: They’ll either heavily overmoderate to the point of clearing all third-party speech before publication or heavily undermoderate to the point of becoming another 4chan. Right now, we have 230 in place to prevent those outcomes from being forced upon services. The only “incentives” for moderation, at least at this moment, are driven by the size and kind of community that a service wants to attract—and how those decisions might affect the reputation of said service. And I should note that while 230 protects those decisions in terms of legal liability, the First Amendment is what gives those services the right to make those decisions in the first place. If you have a problem with how certain services moderate third-party speech, remember how the same laws that let Truth Social make itself a right-wing shitpit are the same laws that let Techdirt choose to let your posts go through without being held up for days for legal clearance, then act accordingly.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, it would, which is why I specifically said: That doesn’t mean getting rid of 230 is necessarily the answer, but not because it won’t change things, but the side effects.
That is exactly the ‘side effect’ I was referring to, and why I said that doesn’t mean getting rid of it is the answer. We’re agreeing- you’re not arguing that it wouldn’t change them, rather, you’re arguing that the harm from side effects of repealing it (e.g. how sites like TD can post comments) would outweigh that.
That is true. And to be clear, there is no (reasonable) fix to 230 you could make that would make Truth Social not a shitpit. If you’re making any changes at all, it’s going to have to be relatively narrow for exactly the reasons you’re mentioning (both 1A, and collateral damage). The core of what makes Truth a shitpit is user content, and that’s basically off limits.
Fundamentally, at the end of the day, the First Amendment allows a lot of shit. We’re stuck with that, unless we toss it out (which would be bad). At best, waving a magic wand, you’re getting parity with paper publications, and god knows there’s still plenty of shitpits there (the WSJ OpEd page would fit right in on Truth Social).
To the extent that you can even hypothetically touch 230, you can only get at the parts that give protections that are broader than the 1A. Anywhere they overlap is out. And that gets narrower once you have to avoid things like collateral damage.
Re: Re: Re:3
Getting rid of Section 230 would result in sites’ inability to moderate as they choose as a main effect rather than a side effect, actually, but you keep going, subversive anti-230 shill.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s a good thing I’ve explicitly said I’d rather not get rid of 230, precisely for that reason, then.
Re: Re: Re:3
No one who says “let’s change 230”—including you—has ever suggested any change to the law that would avoid the awful outcomes while preserving/bolstering the good outcomes. If you think 230 should be changed, and you think it can be done in a way that would avoid wrecking the open web, by all means: Explain what that change should be.
Re: Re: Re:
Fox News/News Corp has ALWAYS been motivated by something other than money: total Republican control of EVERYTHING.
Same shit with Elon.
Tell us, then, how should the government be able to influence those kinds of people without resorting to highly unConstitutional actions.
Spoiler: You can’t. At least not without using the Constitution like kindling.
And as the Tiktok thing shows, they’re more than willing to tear up the Constitution.
It will, both domestically and globally.
Domestically, it tells everyone in America that the Constitution does not apply to everyone equally anymore. Something the Tiktok thing has shown.
Because, yanno, 1A. 1A has those exact carveouts, but no one is caring. Or reading.
Internationally, well, it just makes China’s position all that much stronger, and what you IMPLY means America should abandon the pursuit of freedom and the (American) rule of law to become no better than the Xis, Kims, Putins and Modis of the world.
If you haven’t read the news recently, more countries, including American allies like ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA are gravitating towards China.
Sunsetting Section 230, while a domestic event, will signal to the rest of the world that America is abandoning all pretenses to any sort of moral high ground as to the pursuit of freedom and the (American) rule of law.
Which can eventually lead to nuclear war. But it will make geopolitical diplomacy all that much dicier, because, as everyone knows by now, appeasing a dictator is no guantaree of success.
If that’s what you want, Murdoch Simp, then good luck.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yas queen, slay! Call him a Murdoch simp again! Hnnnnng –
Re: Re: Re:3
How much drag race do you watch, Herman?
Re: Re: Re:4
Hyman Rosen doesn’t watch drag races… not willingly, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:5
Of course he does, just not the kind you were thinking of.
Re: Re: Re:2
Incentives don’t matter just for money making companies. We’ve seen that with e.g. Dominion’s lawsuits. Fox changed it’s tune real fast after it got sued and lost. (Not perfectly, mind you. It obviously still made the claims in the first place, and the damage has been done). But it did have some effect. And the harsher that reaction was, the bigger incentive to not cross it is.
Just because Fox is in it for other things doesn’t make it immune to incentives. It means the balance of incentives is different than if it were just concerned with money.
There are other examples, as well, such as the DMCA. Fox is not immune to that, either.
Yes, you can. We already do with laws like defamation, fraud, etc. These examples literally already exist. The Foxes of the world would absolutely be happy to throw those to the wind, if they could. The fact that those exist, does influence their behavior.
Nowhere am I saying that you should target Fox specifically with a law. You can target things (like defamation) in a content neutral way. That still has a meaningful effect on bad actors like Fox, despite applying to everyone.
It’s funny how I’m somehow both a Murdoch simp, and unconstitutionally targeting Fox at the same time.
Re: Re: Re:3
The only reason why it was so harsh and Murdoch chose to settle was because Dominion brought hard evidence. A paper trail and email convos, so to speak. With not only Murdoch’s own words, but also those of his underlings. Not even Clarence Thomas could be bribed to ignore the hard evidence (but he will certainly try).
If none of those existed Dominion would have eventually lost.
And how would you influence a petty, vindictive, super rich but also super smart Goering?
Since he’s rich, he’s largely immune to a lot of the law by simply throwung money at lawyers. Or throwing money to bribe, sorry, make political donations to Republican candidates who will repeal said laws.
Since he’s also smart, he also started Fox News with the intent to support any Republican candidate, while poisoning the media well at the same time.
Rupert Murdoch has spent a good chunk of his life already immune to, or created the conditions to, be largely immune from the evil he’s done.
The same DMCA Murdoch has liberally used to censor criticism? Oh, yes, News Corp surely is not immune to the thing they keep abusing.
Spoiler alert: Yes they fucking are, Murdoch Simp.
Only if the procesecution can prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt. Against an entity that is more than happy to start bribing, sorry, befriending, the people involved in the judiciary.
Clarence Thomas and his shady fucking bribes, sorry, *gifts, would beg to differ. Alito too. And the Federalist Society. And that one pissant called Aileen Cannon… and that’s JUST the US.
Sorry not sorry to burst that bubble.
And nowhere did I say they should be.
Perhaps you have a case of selective illiteracy, but what I said was that the rule of law is now applied differently to everyone.
And nowhere is it as fucking obvious as Rupert Murdoch. Because he’s gone and made himself immune to just about everything the law can throw at him, to the point where he has POLITICIANS (mostly Republicans) craving for his Seal Of Approval so he can sling mud, spread medical disinformation and destroy America for the sake of his own fucking ego.
Sunsetting 230 means only corpos and the rich get to dictate content, and that any criticism could eventually get hauled to the court for just about ANY sort of madeup crime.
It also means that the rich have rights and the rest of us get to rot, or, if we’re lucky, die in the eventual forever wars. Just a grim fucking reminder that dying in a trench will come for us all if 230 gets sunsetted. Yes, it’s very hyperbolic, I know. But you’re on fucking Techdirt. Start reading. Make the fucking connections.
It’s extremely maddening that you think I think the government should target Rupert Murdoch, which is more telling of your intention than anything.
Perhaps I’ve made some ambigious wording, no matter how hard I try to make my speech as simple, consise and unambigious as possible. I will atrive to be clearer, easier to read and more importantly, to the fucking point with as little ambiguity and sophistry as possible.
Makes it harder for bad faith sophists like you to twist my words, though you WILL try.
Re: Re: Re:
Are you daft? Musk is running Twitter into the ground explicitly because he’s ignoring the incentives of other companies. He’s just got a long runway so its taking a hot minute
Re: Re: Re:2
Perhaps I worded that poorly. When I say “beholden to incentives”, it matters how big the incentive is. A small incentive can be ignored. A big enough one can’t be.
There’s a distinction there, between “incentive is too small to matter”, and “incentives don’t matter”. If the incentive to small to matter, that means you’re not actually giving a relevant incentive.
As analogy, if I said you could burn down Twitter for $10, sure that’d be an incentive not to (you’d pay $10), but it’s not a particularly big incentive, either. Again, the issue is not that incentives don’t matter, it’s that $10 would be a relatively paltry one for you.
He’s got a long runway, but he’s not completely immune to it, either. It’s a fucking lot of money, but it is finite. And incentives are not just monetary, either. They can also be legal. His money can buy good lawyers, but those lawyers abilities are limited if e.g. the government wanted to crank down on say, Twitter’s consent decree. For example, he lost with the SEC over his 420 funding secured comment. (Mind you, the SEC has been pretty skittish about enforcing it).
You see the same thing in other areas as well. Delaware clawed his compensation back, he was forced to rehire the Tesla supercharger team, etc. He didn’t rehire them because he got over his childish tantrum, he did it because the incentive smacked him in the face- he needs that team.
It’s easy to think these people are untouchable, because consequences rarely actually touch them, even when government agencies try (or ‘try’). But that’s not because incentives don’t matter. Quite the opposite, those people are still operating under incentives- it’s just the current incentives give them no reason to give a fuck. Why should Musk care if Twitter burns? There’s no incentive for him, he’s got an ungodly amount of money either way.
When you talk about incentives, you have to look at the entire context. Yes, losing money in a company is an incentive. But how effective that incentive is also matters relative to things like his current wealth. Society has put him into a situation where that incentive is not that big, like it would be for most people.
The lesson is not that incentives don’t matter, and you shouldn’t try. It’s to get a bigger incentive stick (within the limits of 1A etc), if you can.
Re: Re: Re:3
Unfortunately, to get a bigger “incentive” stick, the government will have to start shredding the Constitution.
Even you said the SEC is skittish trying to enforce already existing charges and related decrees.
And while it’d be great if every court were like the Delaware Chancery Court, not every court is like that. And it’s all because of rich people like Elon Musk bribing, sorry, befriending the judges and bribing, sorry, making political donations, to various politicians.
There’s a reason why the Republicans created this whole fucking network of think-tanks talking heads and “advocacy groups” to protect their owners.
To be virtually untouchable, to the point of committing treason.
What sort of carrots and sticks work on people who “got away” with committing an insurrection paid for by Putin?
Re: Re: Re:3
What the fuck? 44 billion dollars evaporating is the BIGGEST incentive.
Dude, you really need to work on brevity in your posts. You say so little in so.many words they’re near unintelligible.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not when you’re worth 180+ billion, it isn’t.
If I do shorter posts, I get people attacking it for things I didn’t say, or interpreting things in bad faith. Pick your poison.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’ll just point out that what you are talking about his net worth which consists entirely of shares and options. The 44 billion used to buy Twitter is comprised of Musk taking on 7.5 billion in personal liabilities, plus loans, plus he leveraged a bunch of his Tesla shares.
The reality is, if those financing those loans want their money back they’ll get them back which most likely means forcing Musk to step down as CEO while divesting his interest in Twitter at a bargain price which also means he has to hand over a bunch over Tesla shares. Saying that virtually setting fire to 44 billion isn’t an incentive disregards a lot of factor tied up in that sum, especially considering how Musk fought tooth and nail not to buy Twitter after saying objectively stupid shit. It also disregards the fact that he’s doing all he can to make Twitter/X profitable, but his “all he can” is mostly wrong and stupid.
If he had no incentive stopping the devaluation of 44 billion he could just walk away.
But he hasn’t, has he?
Learn to be concise then, because your posts are borderline readable.
“Congress should deal in the land of reality.”
But that’s no fun, and it’s hard work. Reality is messy, complicated, continuously changing, and subject to interpretation. Why would they bother when they can get paid for performative nonsense. Being elected to Congress is just another form of grift.
Re:
Arianity should deal in the land of reality, but they’d rather deal in the inventions and confabulation they’ve created in their own mind. I wonder if they’re a Congress critter, too?
To much to control
“while also insisting that they need to get discovery from companies to be able to prove that their cases aren’t frivolous.”
TO FIND WHAT?
If they already have people that Witnessed something BAD, then COPY PASTE IT. SHOW THE COMPANY.
If you want Enough people to watch All the conversations or for Google to keep COPIES of every chat, you are asking for the WORLD. The Data Storage alone would encompass the WORLD.
You are asking These companies to be your SPIES, YOUR BABY SITTERS, EVERYTHING that Protects SPEECH GONE.
ARE you so stupid you cant use your PHONE to Photo the display? SHOW the CHAT/FORUM/VIDEO and the SITE with a small movie.
AND if you are showing us CSPAN, I will laugh until I DIE.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Supporting the trolls and nazis as always, Mike. Great ideas you have, not.
Re:
Thank you for you nuanced take on this topic, you may return to your sandbox and toys after you get your diaper changed.
Re:
Hey John Smith, shouldn’t you be trying to sell a mailing list or something?
Re:
All together now. FUCK YOU FEELINGS!
Re:
No sentient human being could read what I wrote and think “yeah, Mike supports trolls and nazis.”
Ergo, you are not a sentient human being.
Re: Re:
Don’t lump him with the animals, plants and even objects.
Even rocks and computers have more empathy than him, and they’re objects.
'If I don't get a married bachelor I'm burning this internet to the ground!'
But what became clear at this hearing, yet again, is that Democrats think (falsely) that removing Section 230 will lead to some magic wonderland where internet companies remove “bad” information, like election denials, disinformation, and eating disorder content, but leave up “good” information, like information about abortions, voting info, and news. While Republicans think (falsely) that removing Section 230 will let their supporters post racial slurs without consequence, but encourage social media companies to remove “pro-terrorist” content and sex trafficking.
The content one side wants removed is the same content the other side insists has a right to be posted and vice versa.
The democrats are trying to remove the ability for companies to not be liable for content they don’t post under the idea that if companies are liable they’ll moderate more heavily, which will instead mean that those companies that do allow user submitted content won’t touch any of if but that which is outright illegal to host since moderating any of it means liability for all of it(that being the state things were in pre-230 and one of the primary reasons it was written).
Meanwhile the republicans are trying to remove the ability for companies to moderate content they don’t want on their platform, which will instead lead other companies to either bring down the hammer on anything even remotely questionable or ban user submitted content entirely since they will no longer be able to afford to leave anything but the most harmless content up lest they face crushing lawsuits.
The fact that the end goals of each party are diametrically opposed should be enough to highlight that none of them are operating in good faith are neither of them is going to get what they want should they ‘win’, yet sadly all they care about is performative nonsense to rile up the gullible voters who’s representatives are inching ever closer to stabbing them in the back.
Re:
Steganography would like to inform you of its existence.
I am sorry for giving politicians ideas.
Only nice people on the Internet?
Won’t someone think of the politicians who will have to resort to cable and radio?
Congress could go further
While congress is using its magical powers to only all nice people to be online, while they’re at it, they could also please eliminate corporate greed.
There you have it! Vermin Supreme for president!