8808
Comments (431)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
49
Gunslinger1776 49 points ago +49 / -0

Everyone freaking out about 230 being terminated instead of reformed... <sips coffee>... this is how Trump opens a negotiation. He always overshoots with the expectation of meeting in the middle. This is the Art of the Deal.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
day221 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even if they change their terms to make it clear they are a place for communists only, it should still be illegal because they built their base on the pretense of neutrality. If you ever were a neutral platform, you should have to stay that way to keep 230. This trick of bait and switch is used all the time by the left.

2
bigntazt 2 points ago +3 / -1

I think this site would be fine, we don't pretend to be a town square with open discussions. It's very clear. We are a Trump rally, get on board or gtfo.

Facebook and Twitter pretend being the towns bulletin board and regularly abuse 230 protections.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
Gunslinger1776 4 points ago +4 / -0

If Section 230 were simply removed, Michelle Obama aka Big Mike would be able to sue the website for claiming that he has a large penis.

Doesn’t this mean she’s have to prove, in court, that she doesn’t have a large penis? OMFG 😂 KEK

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
TrumpsBigBalls 1 point ago +1 / -0

yeah but....it also gives us all the ability to sue the fuck out of them.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
kekNation 1 point ago +1 / -0

Scott Adams has entered the chat

1
rationalistone 1 point ago +1 / -0

If Trump is using nation security as a reason to do something, there will be no "Art of the Deal" involved. He will be using Presidential power to eliminate 230 or parts of it because it is a threat to national security (e.g. China has undue influence over Big Tech players, which is likely why they are waging information warfare on the American public).