3782
Comments (261)
sorted by:
212
deleted 212 points ago +218 / -6
98
Touser 98 points ago +101 / -3

Maybe, still a good idea to remove 230 from big tech publishers

83
deleted 83 points ago +85 / -2
36
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 36 points ago +44 / -8

OK. Let's assume for a second that she's deep state total swamp. (I have no clue who she is.) But she's saying to remove the 230 protections from the big tech companies, and that's EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED DONE! This will allow us to sue Facebook, Instagram, and Twatter for censoring our posts. MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!

37
deleted 37 points ago +37 / -0
37
proudtobeadeplorable 37 points ago +42 / -5

lots of federal $ to go to corrupt blue cities and states to then be funneled to china, probably

-8
bananaguard62 -8 points ago +10 / -18

"Probably" says the ignorant

11
proudtobeadeplorable 11 points ago +14 / -3

dont have to be rude. just having some fun around here. jeeze

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
5
CaptJohnYossarian 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well the bill she proposed pre election to combat vote harvesting had no pork in it. People had the same argument then.

-2
Trump_in_2020_Pedes -2 points ago +1 / -3

Fish?

23
MrZ211 23 points ago +23 / -0

Most of the people on this site have a bad habbit of putting someone on a pedestal because they say one thing they agree with.

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
10
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 10 points ago +10 / -0

Her policy positions (still up on her website) are to the Left of Bernie Sanders. She's a commie.

1
Kamalas_a_Bitch 1 point ago +2 / -1

I bet her version of this Sec 230 thing sucks like her commie ideas

5
AntiDespot 5 points ago +6 / -1

Or putting them in a box and calling them corrupt for something they disagree with.

1
The_banned 1 point ago +2 / -1

All politicians are the help as far as I'm concerned unless they prove otherwise. They are subservient to me, not the other way around.

4
kingbird 4 points ago +5 / -1

The question is: How is Big Tech defined? Who defines it? What are the metrics? The devil is on the detail. Is thedonald.win big tech? Maybe they are trying to eliminate the competition: Rumble, Parler, TheDonald, etc.

1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 1 point ago +2 / -1

You don't have to define Big Tech. You just remove Rule 230 and all problems are solved.

0
TheWinningNeverStops 0 points ago +1 / -1

Simple

3
Zeriel 3 points ago +5 / -2

What if she removes 230 only to add a 231 thats just the same but better for big tech?

-3
Trump_in_2020_Pedes -3 points ago +1 / -4

It's not like she's going to do this in a vacuum. They'll have to vote on it for it to pass. So, if it's worse, then it won't pass.

7
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 7 points ago +8 / -1

That theory has been deboonked many times. Plenty of horrible bills have been passed, and there are always RINOs on hand to pass them.

-6
Trump_in_2020_Pedes -6 points ago +1 / -7

I'm guessing you missed the part where you learn that "you live in a free country and they will have to vote on this. If you don't like the results of the vote, you can vote out your senators/representatives in the next election." Let me know which part you don't grasp.

7
Zeriel 7 points ago +8 / -1

How about the part where they can STEAL the elections and CONTROL the votes? Are you a shill or are you new here?

-1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes -1 points ago +1 / -2

OK. So this has nothing to do with the elections. Not surprised you don't grasp that. You seem to have some reading comprehension issues.

5
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah, that's worked out fucking swell for our Republic, hasn't it? That's exactly how we got 0bamacare, the Patriot Act, and a whole list of other anti-Constitutional garbage.

0
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 0 points ago +2 / -2

You're saying you want to keep Rule 230? WTF? I'm guessing you don't grasp what Rule 230 does.

-3
Trump_in_2020_Pedes -3 points ago +0 / -3

OK. So this has nothing to do with the elections. Not surprised you don't grasp that. You seem to have some reading comprehension issues.

3
Scroon 3 points ago +3 / -0

No. Abolish 230 completely. Anything short allows more word games to be played.

1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's what we're talking about doing. Abolishing Rule 230 completely. How do you not grasp that?

0
Scroon 0 points ago +1 / -1

She's talking about removing 230 immunity from publishers. That's different from eliminating 230 altogether, meaning 230 would not exist and content hosts would have no special protection no matter who they are.

1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. You have it all wrong. I'm not even clear that you understand what Rule 230 is or who it's supposed to protect. Rule 230 was put in place so that you couldn't sue the companies on the internet, but they were never supposed to censor like publishers. They're not responsible for the content, and can't be sued, because they're platforms, not publishers. But then, guess what? They started censoring like publishers. So they don't deserve the protections granted them under Rule 230. So, remove Rule 230, and they can be sued out of existence, problem solved. It's pretty clear that you don't grasp this, and it's clearly above your level of comprehension, so I won't reply to you any more. Bueno suerte.

0
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's what we're saying. Remove the 230 protects. Abolish 230 completely is the same thing.

1
Scroon 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not the same. She's saying to remove it from hosts that "act like publishers". That means that 230 would still apply to "non-publishers". Abolishing 230 means that nobody gets legal protection and nobody gets to censor based on the "objectional to the community" criteria.

1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, it's 6 one way, half dozen the other. I know you don't grasp all of this. You've made that painfully clear. But there's absolutely no reason that Rule 230 should have to be removed from a company that's not abusing their rights and acting like a publisher. Think of your telephone company. They don't censor your telephone calls, so they should be protected from lawsuits based on what is said over the phone. You don't understand this. I know. Maybe ask someone smarter than you. Is there a parrot or a dog nearby?

1
Trump_in_2020_Pedes 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. You have it all wrong. I'm not even clear that you understand what Rule 230 is or who it's supposed to protect. Rule 230 was put in place so that you couldn't sue the companies on the internet, but they were never supposed to censor like publishers. They're not responsible for the content, and can't be sued, because they're platforms, not publishers. But then, guess what? They started censoring like publishers. So they don't deserve the protections granted them under Rule 230. So, remove Rule 230, and they can be sued out of existence, problem solved. It's pretty clear that you don't grasp this, and it's clearly above your level of comprehension, so I won't reply to you any more. Bueno suerte.

2
Gelus 2 points ago +2 / -0

So we do incrementalism like the libs do. Every time they agree with us, we take ground. Every time they don't agree with us, we dig our heels in and stonewall.

1
Touser 1 point ago +1 / -0

Look no one but trump has it completely right I know but if someone has a good idea no matter the party I’m going to support it.

4
Sl0re10 4 points ago +4 / -0

I like that it picks and choses. Leave it for orgs that play fair.

2
MNMathtic 2 points ago +2 / -0

The only problem is, who picks and chooses?

2
Scroon 2 points ago +3 / -1

No that's a misdirection. 230 needs to be abolished completely. Stripping 230 from "publishers" just means they can skirt the definition of publishers and still operate with full protection.

The whole idea of publisher/not publisher is a ruse actually.

Everyone needs to go read 230 themselves. It flat out states that no content host can ever be sued for anything, and they have full discretion on what they can censor as long as they can argue it as "objectionable".

1
Khenal 1 point ago +1 / -0

If 230 is abolished, this very site can be sued and destroyed if some random new account decides to post child porn. 230 needs to be properly enforced, not abolished.

1
Scroon 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, imo, that's the trick argument they use to keep 230 in existence. It's similar to the Net Neutrality argument where they said that without Net Neutrality protection, the internet would cease to exist.

Think about it. Child porn is illegal, right? Without 230, if someone posts CP, then obviously the host would take it down because it's illegal. If they did not take it down, then without 230 they would be held accountable for hosting it...as they should be.

Now WITH 230, the host is never responsible, so therefore they could let CP stay up and be immune from prosecution. (They don't do this of course, but they could.) But with 230, the host could also censor stuff like "hate speech" and also be immune.

So which of these situations seems more correct to you?

1
Khenal 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point isn't that some site could theoretically leave cp up and be fine. The point is that any troll could post cp and, even if it's deleted quickly, the site could be held liable for it, if 230 is repealed.

Without 230, places like the win are publishers, and so responsible for anything published. Without 230, at best, posts are text only, as pics or links would put the place at risk for any bad actor to come along.

20
AdmrlNelson 20 points ago +20 / -0

She also was a total hypocrite about removing troops from Syria (for it, then GEOTUS did it, then criticized him for it).

That said, even though I don't trust her at all, any effort towards fighting big tech (230 or anti-trust) is something I can get behind and give updoots for

10
deleted 10 points ago +14 / -4
9
AdmrlNelson 9 points ago +9 / -0

Oh I know, but thanks for making the point so well, because it's important that people are aware. One good deed does not mean these politicians are your friends and will actually represent you or the people.

Dan Crenshaw supports red flag laws too.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
8
AdmrlNelson 8 points ago +8 / -0

She actually voted Nay. NDAA passed with veto-proof majority, 335 - 78 with 1 present.

(Roll call link)[https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2020238]

4
Zeriel 4 points ago +5 / -1

Dont trust that. Its easy to vote nay to cover your tracks when you know that your vote wont matter

3
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly. Politicians do this all the time.

3
bobobob 3 points ago +3 / -0

The NDAA is usually full of wasteful spending on lots of different things. She could've voted nay for a different reason.

2
AdmrlNelson 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep. They always try to cram budget for other crap in with a bill that should cover a single issue and be a no brainier, then say "why won't they super this one cover issue?"

Just look at the Dems trying to pass all their racist critical race theory programs in the covid relief bills.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
7
side_o_beef 7 points ago +7 / -0

I don't trust snakes but I'll gladly toss one into the big tech pit.

7
HoneyBadger32 7 points ago +7 / -0

Zuckerberg is also part of the same forum.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
90
Libertas_Vel_Mors 90 points ago +96 / -6

Say what you will, but her balls are bigger than Romney's at this point.

58
You_Aint_Black 58 points ago +58 / -0

Not a very high bar, and it's more like she understands her audience... basically beanie boy, sees all the corruption and slime but would still rather vote for a democrat if they become palatable because feels and shit.

24
Libertas_Vel_Mors 24 points ago +24 / -0

No doubt about that at all. I wouldn't vote for her in a zillion years - especially as long as that "D" hangs by her title.

That said, I'm just pointing out that we got serious shitweasels in the GOP that need to be forcibly ejected once this shit is solved.

5
BloodDe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Makes sense

89
Ogcarvattack 89 points ago +94 / -5

WEC whore

41
IncredibleMrE1 41 points ago +41 / -0

She was on the CFR, too.

19
Ogcarvattack 19 points ago +19 / -0

^this also.

11
deleted 11 points ago +13 / -2
5
Ogcarvattack 5 points ago +6 / -1

one for each crater in her face.

20
TruthVelocity 20 points ago +21 / -1

This

83
deleted 83 points ago +83 / -0
35
TheSwiftPepe 35 points ago +36 / -1

Well maybe she'll be useful then. Encourage this anti-tech sentiment and leave her to dry when it's time.

7
RealRedneck 7 points ago +7 / -0

We need useful idiots too.

1
sociopathix 1 point ago +1 / -0

We don't need useful idiots. We need to use their useful idiots.

I'm going to assume this is what you meant in the first place, at least the sentiment.

1
RealRedneck 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bingo!

10
IroWide 10 points ago +11 / -1

Came here to say this...she's trying to stay relevant and in the national eye.

7
deleted 7 points ago +11 / -4
1
Pedeville 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does she think she can beat Trump?

1
Sunnybats2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

No

1
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump can't run in 2024. That will be the end of his second term.

2
Pedeville 2 points ago +2 / -0

The he'll start his third term

60
americathegr888 60 points ago +62 / -2

CFR traitor can go fuck herself.

47
Cbllbc 47 points ago +53 / -6

I think the phrasing is incredibly key here. The way she says it is that 230 stays, but tech that acts against it (censorship) , no longer benefit from it.

Maybe I misunderstood the Trump tweets, but it sounded like he wanted 230 completely removed.

Completely removing 230 would be terrible for us and alternative tech media (tdw, gab, bitchute, etc.).

Only removing certain companies that are in violation, sounds much more promising.

38
deleted 38 points ago +39 / -1
8
KRM944 8 points ago +9 / -1

One day I would like to see both sides to this debate- modify or trash 230. I don’t know enough to pick a side-

But I’m 💯 that there is an issue that needs attention!

3
calmestchaos 3 points ago +3 / -0

Modify is the best answer by far, Trump is almost certainly either trying to really fuck over Big Tech or is doing the Big ask. In the end though we do need 230 protections for you to even be allowed to make that comment. Independent news media 100% needs 230 to be allowed to post on YouTube or any other big platform. With out 230, Youtube becomes Cable TV while Twitter and The Donald start bleeding out with no way to stop the bleeding until they die of bloodloss. 230 is the only reason we are allowed to post comments anywhere, its why Forums are allowed to exist. The internet needs 230 or something like 230.

5
AuPhalanx 5 points ago +5 / -0

I've often wondered if rather than it being under the prevue of Section 230, the actions taken against mostly "right-wing" media on these platforms would fall under the domain of the FTC because it's clearly a case of un-fair trade and service. Thoughts?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
AuPhalanx 0 points ago +0 / -0

Not quite. Witness what happened to the Christian baker. Or try to refuse service to someone based on their race or sex. Any business that serves the public MUST follow strict guidelines, regulations, and laws.

Section 230 is very murky -- and that leads to the trouble into which we keep running. Yes, a platform, such as TDW or YouTube, should not be liable for what users post on them.

Thus, the question becomes, to what extent can they exclude content without that exclusion become an editorial decision?

On the other hand, if we apply FTC thinking to this issue, we get a different story because we can see a clear-cut case of bias against "right-wing" content. See what I mean?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
Sunnybats2 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting!

1
Zeriel 1 point ago +4 / -3

Sorry but I disagree completely. 230 is way too dangerous to keep around. Big tech will find a way to take advantage and nothing will change. Its our Democracy and our entire Republic that is at stake. So we cant take half measures.

Trump wants 230 gone and thats what we need to do. Even if the Internet crumbles it will mainly be big tech and the msm. Nobody will care about the smaller sites.

Big tech is too powerful and too dangerous to keep alive.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
15
Isolated_Patriot 15 points ago +15 / -0

The globalists want to modify it, and Trump wants to remove it.

Perhaps we should think a little harder about why that is. Tulsi here wants government authority to selectively enforce a law. That is bullshit and should never be endorsed by any so called conservative.

"Oh, thedonald.win is censoring people who don't like Trump? Well lets just remove their protection. We'll leave reddit's protection in place though, because they promised to only censor fake news that talks about election fraud and donated to my campaign."

10
Cbllbc 10 points ago +10 / -0

You make a really good point I didn't consider. The selective enforcement of the law.

I still don't think removing it entirely is a good idea. But, I'm not sure what the better solution is other than encouraging more competition, diverse information sources, and attention to local community.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
3
Isolated_Patriot 3 points ago +4 / -1

As you can see, making "Changes" is a landmine we should not be trying to do quickly. To make proper changes would take years, and we need action NOW. Removal is Fast, and then we can spend a couple years figuring out a proper replacement.

5
Zeriel 5 points ago +5 / -0

THIS, this is why we need to remove it. Big tech is too dangerous and we cant take half meassures. We need to cut the head of the snake now while we can!

2
lion 2 points ago +3 / -1

It’s not an arbitrary selection though. There are criteria that a company has to meet before the protections take effect.

1
TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

Excellent point pede!

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
2
booblitchutz 2 points ago +3 / -1

Exactly. I worry that any Dominioncrat being involved pollutes the entire process though.

6
Zeriel 6 points ago +6 / -0

Wow good catch! Then big tech can just claim "dispooted we are not publishers" and walk scott free

5
lion 5 points ago +5 / -0

Specifically, the Breakup Big Tech Act of 2020 would remove legal immunity for providers that engage in the following activities:

Selling and displaying personalized as well as contextual advertising without user’s consent

Collecting data for commercial purposes other than the direct sale of the interactive computer service, i.e. turning the user into a commodity or otherwise monetizing the transmission of content

Acting as a marketplace in the digital space by facilitating the placement of items into the stream of commerce

Employing digital products and designs intended to engage and addict users to the service

Acting as a publisher by using algorithms to moderate or censor content without opt-in from users

3
Cbllbc 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh ok. So it is like GDPR plus a couple of add ons.

The marketplace one sounds like it would hurt competition that is smaller.

The addiction one sounds a bit vague.

33
Whispering_Stars 33 points ago +38 / -5

Eh Tulsi's politics are fairly terrible on paper. But if she gets it done, she gets it done.

29
You_Aint_Black 29 points ago +30 / -1

She won’t and she already knows it.

22
deleted 22 points ago +23 / -1
12
AngryAsian 12 points ago +14 / -2

Tulsi is the person who agreed the impeachment was a sham, but voted "Present" instead of "No" during the vote. Typical woman in leadership who doesn't have the balls to do what is right.

9
Anon1970 9 points ago +10 / -1

A lot of typical men in leadership who don't have the balls to do what is right either. Division tactics accomplish nothing.

4
AngryAsian 4 points ago +5 / -1

Yes, a lot of men, guess what, a LOT of unqualified women were recently put into positions are leadership just to "balance" the board. A man gets called out, a woman gets a pass, no division, just truth

2
TheWinningNeverStops 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is the different. Men can get called out but women will hide behind equality.

3
deleted 3 points ago +6 / -3
0
Anon1970 0 points ago +2 / -2

BS, this world is fucked up because of men using your logic. Isn't this a "man's world"? SMH.

Men are the creators of all the leftist ideologies. They then use men and women as useful idiots to carry out their control freak plans.

1
deleted 1 point ago +8 / -7
1
Anon1970 1 point ago +1 / -0

Seems you are the one that is triggered by the facts I presented. You could look them up yourself but I know you won't.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
TheWinningNeverStops 2 points ago +2 / -0

She also said Tump has kurdish blood on his hands for trying to get troops out. This bitch is as two faced as they come.

5
MAGA_Master2 5 points ago +6 / -1

She's all talk

1
booblitchutz 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think that's exactly the problem. Putting this in the hands of ANY Dominioncrat will ensure it doesn't get done.

25
Brooklyn_Patriot_76 25 points ago +25 / -0

All she would have to do is support 2A and she would be a RINO.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
1
TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

kek true

23
americanjerky 23 points ago +24 / -1

Fuck Tulsi, she voted "present" instead of against the dems on the impeachment sham, and is in bed with Chyna.

17
JiggsawCalrissian 17 points ago +17 / -0

Winner of 'least terrible'

14
deleted 14 points ago +15 / -1
13
Covfefe_Crusader 13 points ago +15 / -2

I trust this bitch as much as I trust any globalist piece of shit. This would just be used to shut down any alternatives to facebook, google, twitter, etc that don't fall in line.

8
Isolated_Patriot 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yes, please pay attention people. The government should NEVER have the ability to selectively enforce any law, and that is exactly what they are trying to do here. They want to choose who gets protection and who doesn't.

12
Zuko_Epic 12 points ago +12 / -0

Fuck yea. Hope it passes

11
CockShitBalls 11 points ago +13 / -2

She is our Romney. Controlled opposition

8
ShwoopDaddy 8 points ago +8 / -0

As much as I dont trust Gabbard, I still say she was the better pick for the Dems to go with over Biden

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
6
j4ckp0t 6 points ago +7 / -1

I SLUT

6
Solar24 6 points ago +6 / -0

Don't trust the devil

6
unmaskedpanda 6 points ago +6 / -0

I could see Tulsi voting against Pelosi as speaker... one more and the Dems lose control of the House.

5
MajorAppleHead 5 points ago +5 / -0

Read that

4
BloodDe 4 points ago +5 / -1

I’m not saying trust her by any means but I don’t see how this helps her on the left.

Maybe she feels like she didn’t get a fair shake.

4
EpstinDidntKilHimslf 4 points ago +5 / -1

I don’t care if she’s a lezzy with that CCP honey pot (still no video confirmation), she’s doing the right thing here

4
Nowsthetime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes!

3
dparks2010 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's entertaining watching Liberals hem haw and bend over backwards to kiss Zukk and Dorsey ass; two multi-billionaires who give a rat's fuck about people as long as they get to push their entitled radical agenda, all while profitting off mean ol' dirty capitalism.

Did I say "entertaining"? I meant hypocritical.

3
namaste_trump 3 points ago +5 / -2

as much as i want twitter and fb to get fucked, this is such a slippery slope and political gamesmanship in lurk. conservatives will block twitter and facebook and rightly so but democrats will retaliate with 230 ban for parlor (maybe with merit or maybe not).

however, i think twitter, fb and google are menacing threats right now that this needs to pass..

also, i dislike her economic policies but she enlisted after 9/11 and is still serving. i think we should chill with the personal attacks and just call her out on her big govt commie economic policies.

3
Snooptwo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hey, remember when the end of Net Neutrality was going to kill the internet?

...

3
GrizzlyAnonbatman1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good for her

3
Pigpenlordofdirt 3 points ago +3 / -0

I dont trust Tulsi as far as I can throw her but this is a solid move as long as she doesn't try to stuff the bill with more of the Dem kid fuckery

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
3
garagedoorhandle 3 points ago +3 / -0

We’ve broken up AT&T how many times? Bust up all these tech monopolies.

3
Raizen7 3 points ago +3 / -0

tim pool love tulsi

2
shadows_of_the_mind 2 points ago +4 / -2

Tulsi is at least bearable

1
TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nay she is the worst type. The two faced backstabbing type.

2
Kaiheitai 2 points ago +2 / -0

Courage!

2
shawnsbrain66 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tulsi Gabbard is more of a Republican than Mitt Romney

2
WU_HAN_FRU 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bernie Bros will flock to her if she makes herself the lefty populist.

2
djentropyhardcore 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesnt matter how far this bill goes. The point is that SOMEONE is trying SOMETHING on this, and that should be applauded. If nothing else, it gets people talking about it more.

2
Hereforagoodtime 2 points ago +3 / -1

We have to stop with the bashing and brow beatings when someone crosses over on issues. For fuck sakes we've been wanting this and she came across the isle. Trust her or not you have to respect bipartisanship when it's fucking offered. Be a hard-liner is you want but we need to learn to work together in Congress so all of these fucking Executive Orders can stop.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Haywood_Jablome 2 points ago +2 / -0

GOSAR is true MAGA. That lends some credibility to this, unless he’s being duped

2
Dev404 2 points ago +2 / -0

Let's see if this even reaches the President's desk.

2
GodKingHarambe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gosar is based AF so he overrides her.

2
DonttrustChina 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, the Tulsi coin came up heads today?

2
NoGulag4Me 2 points ago +2 / -0

Meh. I don't agree with her on MANY issues - but she is an independent lefty not so much a swamp snake. I'm all for punishing big tech and reducing their power any way possible.

And I agree with her - they, by current law, have no right to sec230 immunity.

2
Ou812ou812 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'll take this and a side of flied lice.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
uiopy1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, pedes.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
ilikehats 1 point ago +4 / -3

People give Tulsi shit for being a Dem but at least she has her head on straight when it comes to some common sense things.

3
deleted 3 points ago +7 / -4
1
ilikehats 1 point ago +1 / -0

JEEESSUUUUSSSS! I said some 🥴

0
ilikehats 0 points ago +3 / -3

And she’s not too hard to look at either

1
Wien1938 1 point ago +4 / -3

Good girl!