So sure, he won the election—but besides your parasocial bragging rights and your perceived social sanction to openly use an ableist slur (the use of which makes you sound about as intelligent as people who use racial slurs), what have you actually gotten out of his victory?
He got to own the libs. That's all the cultists need.
The problem isn’t with people being rich, it’s with using money as a punishment.
Maybe if monetary punishment actually scaled with income for private citizens, like it sometimes does with company fines, the rich wouldn't be as eager to think they would get away with the crime.
In the event that you fail to comply with this demand or any part of its lawful scope, the Stockholders will seek judicial redress, including attorney’s fees.
That's a bit rich coming from someone with actual Trump Derangement Syndrome, and who apparently thinks that "lol, sure, whatever" is a meaningful response.
Criticising someone for selling game memorabilia to supposedly pull cash together for a massive takeover bid isn't FUD.
Power to the players.
If you think selling game memorabilia to whomever will buy it, thereby scattering it and locking it down, as opposed to a conservation organisation giving anyone access to it is giving "power to the players", you clearly don't know what that phrase means.
The EU version is arguably worse, because it pertains to their development of an age verification app, effectively making it possible to age-gate every website deemed controversial.
Not to mention that the app was recently noted to be "ready for rollout", and then cracked in two hours when given to security experts to test.
First of all, people still visit 4chan and similar sites.
Yes, because 4chan has always been the way it is.
If Youtube/Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/whatever turned into 4chan, they would lose the vast majority of their users.
Just look at Xitter for a real-world example of what happens when social media sites turn to shit.
Secondly, true freedom of speech necessities freedom from consequence
If you can't handle other people reacting to what you say to them, just shut the fuck up.
No, small sites don't need 230 to survive.
Per Compuserve, all they have to do to not be held liable is to not look at the content and not moderate at all to be legally shielded from what users post
There are only two possible outcomes of that: 1) the site removing all user content, potentially removing their entire raison d'etre, or 2) user content turning the site into a cesspool that users stop wanting to engage with, thus ensuring that the site stop existing.
In conclusion, yes, small sites absolutely need Section 230 to survive.
Well, he seems to kill people or ruin deals wherever he goes, so I'm not sure it would be a good idea for him to be in charge of the entire country.
There's certainly no evidence that he listens to people who know what they're talking about.
According to the letter itself:
I look forward to seeing the gaslighting the Trump brown-noses will put on display to "explain" this.
The EU version is arguably worse, because it pertains to their development of an age verification app, effectively making it possible to age-gate every website deemed controversial. Not to mention that the app was recently noted to be "ready for rollout", and then cracked in two hours when given to security experts to test.
Okay, so pulling it out of your ass. Thought so.
And therefore you don't have to? What kind of toddler logic is that?