The Electors have not been named, so how is he a Lame Duck? If/ When, and only then. This would be like calling Bill Clinton a Rapist, before his first rape.
This guy has never produced video before and it shows. If you want to actually make money on youtube you have to put in shitloads of effort, a "real job" is way, way easier.
You see the doofus playing video games but you don't see the hours and hours of editing and voiceover that went into it.
Edit: unless you're a pretty girl, under 30. Then visual media is easy mode because the only reason anyone cares about you is thirst. But that applies to real jobs too.
Editing really isn't that difficult. What is difficult is to do it day in and day out while building a base that may or may not eventually pay off. Luck finds you when you're working.
I see your logic, especially regarding older generations disapproving of newer generations' behavior.
However, it sounds like you're saying old people don't matter. Just because you disagree with their disdain and frustration with the internet (they didn't even have calculators growing up, let alone mobile phones or YouTube) it doesn't detract from the value or import of their opinions.
I agree, that calling for the immediate removal of something b/c 'big tech bad' is a tad premature. There has to be a middle ground that protects smaller tech businesses while holding large companies accountable for all the shady shit they pull.
But don't devolve into a hater or a name-caller. Those are dem tactics. Talk to the older people in your life. Hear them out.
That only works if the other side isn't willing to give you precisely what you asked for.
Unfortunately outright removing 230 will fuck all of the little companies struggling to compete against big tech. Exactly what they and their lobbyists want.
Exactly. The massive companies can afford the highly sophisticated AI that would be required to carefully scan all posts in real time. Additionally, it will encourage them to increase the stringency, and insta-block anything that even seems like it could have controversial content.
The largest corps also will also be able to afford any lawsuits that arise if some content sneaks through the censors. Small platforms never will.
Sites like this would have to either keep their "platform" status, but stop blocking content based on things like being an anti-Trump shill, which would quickly turn the site into another place for reddit content, or become a "publisher" and be required to censor everything- which would really mean ceasing to exist.
Some people argue that it'd work if it only applied to sites that are a certain size, but again, take into account a site like this. We are certainly not a small site, and just keep growing - but will never have the resources that cutouts like FB have.
Eliminating 230 sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would give big tech co's the perfect opportunity to get rid of all their up & coming competition, AND increase censorship and control of content.
I'm pretty sure that if 230 is repealed, the "platform" status won't exist any more. I think it would then be up to the courts what to do if someone wanted to sue over content posted here (or anywhere).
Big Ask or not, there needs to be a plan on what the new 230 would be after it's revised.
This part of the truth of the matter worries me the most.
Eliminating 230 sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would give big tech co's the perfect opportunity to get rid of all their up & coming competition, AND increase censorship and control of content.
Yep. I think the idea is for GOP peeps to come back with provisions that allow for companies to have their protection status revoked for violating the platform part or allowing people to sue the platform for overly censoring them.
It's not a big ask when you are negotiating exactly what the person your negotiating with wants.
They already built the chinese social credit system. The moment we remove section 230, that will be implemented across the major platforms, and sites like this will be dead.
They've been banning us for two years now, just waiting for us to beg the government to regulate them more.
You'll notice that they didn't begin really doing mas banning on the level they are now, until after they had developed the chinese social media credit system. That's how they'll keep you from being able to register, and post content on their sites.
Do you know who will be able to post content though? Propagandists from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NPR.
It's called the Big Ask. Read the art of the deal
^^^^ A pede who understands negotiating.
Fuck yes they do. I wish more of us would learn these principles.
Yup. Just like if you go ask your husband to go to a 5 star restaurant, of course he'll decline, but then you settle cracker barrel.
And realize you wanted cracker barrel the entire time. Winning!
Maybe, maybe thats what they are doing. What if its not. What if he's being conned into giving big tech exactly what they want. Dont be so sure
The Electors have not been named, so how is he a Lame Duck? If/ When, and only then. This would be like calling Bill Clinton a Rapist, before his first rape.
Black Pills be gone.
Also, Bill Clinton Is A Rapist!
Info wars.com
I seem to recall a former president with a surprisingly short magic wand who couldn't get daca passed. Seems like he was able to do some shit.
"Because AP said so."
This guy has never produced video before and it shows. If you want to actually make money on youtube you have to put in shitloads of effort, a "real job" is way, way easier.
You see the doofus playing video games but you don't see the hours and hours of editing and voiceover that went into it.
Edit: unless you're a pretty girl, under 30. Then visual media is easy mode because the only reason anyone cares about you is thirst. But that applies to real jobs too.
Editing really isn't that difficult. What is difficult is to do it day in and day out while building a base that may or may not eventually pay off. Luck finds you when you're working.
I'm just hoping that more sites will be encouraged to start up that work with creators better than google.
Get rid of 230 and let the chips fall. It will help to improve the culture. Adjust to the reality without 230. It can be done.
Youtube is the new TV. Without Hollywood.
I see your logic, especially regarding older generations disapproving of newer generations' behavior.
However, it sounds like you're saying old people don't matter. Just because you disagree with their disdain and frustration with the internet (they didn't even have calculators growing up, let alone mobile phones or YouTube) it doesn't detract from the value or import of their opinions.
I agree, that calling for the immediate removal of something b/c 'big tech bad' is a tad premature. There has to be a middle ground that protects smaller tech businesses while holding large companies accountable for all the shady shit they pull.
But don't devolve into a hater or a name-caller. Those are dem tactics. Talk to the older people in your life. Hear them out.
Ask for much more, then negotiate it down to what you really wanted.
That only works if the other side isn't willing to give you precisely what you asked for.
Unfortunately outright removing 230 will fuck all of the little companies struggling to compete against big tech. Exactly what they and their lobbyists want.
Exactly. The massive companies can afford the highly sophisticated AI that would be required to carefully scan all posts in real time. Additionally, it will encourage them to increase the stringency, and insta-block anything that even seems like it could have controversial content.
The largest corps also will also be able to afford any lawsuits that arise if some content sneaks through the censors. Small platforms never will.
Sites like this would have to either keep their "platform" status, but stop blocking content based on things like being an anti-Trump shill, which would quickly turn the site into another place for reddit content, or become a "publisher" and be required to censor everything- which would really mean ceasing to exist.
Some people argue that it'd work if it only applied to sites that are a certain size, but again, take into account a site like this. We are certainly not a small site, and just keep growing - but will never have the resources that cutouts like FB have.
Eliminating 230 sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would give big tech co's the perfect opportunity to get rid of all their up & coming competition, AND increase censorship and control of content.
I'm pretty sure that if 230 is repealed, the "platform" status won't exist any more. I think it would then be up to the courts what to do if someone wanted to sue over content posted here (or anywhere).
You are exactly right.
Big Ask or not, there needs to be a plan on what the new 230 would be after it's revised.
This part of the truth of the matter worries me the most.
Like when he was like "Destroy the education system!"...really he just wanted it reformed so leftists can't run it.
I interpreted that to mean replacing public with private/ charter. Which is basically destroying the current education system.
We're both right. He just wanted to make people think he wanted all education destroyed to achieve it.
Smart!
Yep. I think the idea is for GOP peeps to come back with provisions that allow for companies to have their protection status revoked for violating the platform part or allowing people to sue the platform for overly censoring them.
That would be the best.
Exactly. Aim crazy high, and in the end you get what you need. Classic Trump.
Dude is a master in this arena. He got a damn wall without house majority.
tHeRe Is No WaLl
It's not a big ask when you are negotiating exactly what the person your negotiating with wants.
They already built the chinese social credit system. The moment we remove section 230, that will be implemented across the major platforms, and sites like this will be dead.
If Big Tech wanted Section 230 repealed, why haven't they themselves been advocating for it?
They've been banning us for two years now, just waiting for us to beg the government to regulate them more.
You'll notice that they didn't begin really doing mas banning on the level they are now, until after they had developed the chinese social media credit system. That's how they'll keep you from being able to register, and post content on their sites.
Do you know who will be able to post content though? Propagandists from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NPR.