5196
Comments (163)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
178
latetotheparty 178 points ago +179 / -1

IF legally enforceable, this would be more effective than any modification of 230 or "Internet Bill of Rights"

141
B4NN3D45 141 points ago +142 / -1

Shit, Oklahoma will be the richest state in union and won't have to tax citizens anymore.

39
IamM 39 points ago +39 / -0

You have to think them and Poland will be the two most popular places to visit, until much like all other rich things Heather Mills divorces them for $20b.

19
Anon331717 19 points ago +19 / -0

They still will, and will still have shitty roads and schools.

17
Norma_Bates 17 points ago +17 / -0

This is no joke! I've lived in the same house in OK for 14 years, the highway by my house has been under construction for all 14 years. Just last month they finally took up all the orange barrels allowing us to use the new highway.... Today they were putting out more orange barrels!!! I don't f-ing get it!!!

7
Anon331717 7 points ago +7 / -0

Seems the turnpikes are under constant construction.

2
gloriouschairmanpao 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a cartel.

1
KaliyugaNavigator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like I-4 in Orlando. Moved there in 2001, left in 2015. Heh, also 14 years. Literally under construction the whole time and never actually got any better. In fact it was so shitty I swear the cops didn’t patrol it since there was literally nowhere to pull someone over if they wanted to.

It was a straight out of a third world country. Horrible, uneven lanes, painted and repainted and redrawn way too many times, at least 2 feet too narrow; no reflectors and inadequate lighting at night and completely lawless due to lack of police. 55mph zone and the right lanes would be going 5 under due to how sketchy it was while the left lanes if you weren’t doing at least 90 you’d have people right on your bumper flashing lights at you.

Truth is it was the one and only freeway in the city that wasn’t a toll road. You can’t convince me they didn’t keep it shitty like that on purpose

7
LucilleBrawl 7 points ago +7 / -0

When I went to school in Oklahoma, our system was quite good. I am Gen X and I know things have changed. The schools in Alabama, where I live now, are not so good.

8
Hokage_Trump 8 points ago +8 / -0

Facebook: How much money do you need?

Oklahoma: Yes

5
Okie71 5 points ago +5 / -0

Its Oklahoma. The money will most likely go to the Turnpike Authority or some other corrupt entity in the state.

5
afreakycircle 5 points ago +5 / -0

Or useless trolleys

2
kingofbigmac 2 points ago +2 / -0

I just got a job at the OTA...

2
AceOfTrumps 2 points ago +2 / -0

Surprised they didn't make the fine heftier, frankly.

26
Rainman 26 points ago +26 / -0

I don't think any social media organizations have an exemption from breaking state laws or constitutions.

I think 230 simply prevents them from being sued for content, however, violating a state's fair business practices or speech laws seems actionable.

3
bangbus 3 points ago +3 / -0

For now. There is a provision in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause that says Fed trumps state law and I’ll bet one of the forthcoming porkulous packages will pre-empt this and say the states can’t do it.

2
Rainman 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fed law doesn't exempt them from complying with state law

1
Oldschooltexan 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the state law passes and the Federal Govt claims the Supremacy Clause, then the state will have to go to the Supreme court.... Fuuuuccckkkk.....

1
bangbus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Current fed law probably doesn’t but look at who will exercise unfettered control of the government next week.

Fed law has put an end to the practice of suing gun manufacturers and food companies under state law. Social media will get the same protection in a matter of weeks if they ask for it.

12
LibertyThunder [S] 12 points ago +12 / -0

Imagine something like this x50 States!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
-2
randomusers239874 -2 points ago +1 / -3

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this would likely run afoul of the first amendment (ironically). Basically, what their lawyers will argue is that since the first amendment doesn't apply to them as they are private citizens, this law is tantamount to restricting the corporation's right to free speech by forcing them to host opinions they disagree with.

1
bangbus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed. However once you have “an opinion” you cease to be a “platform.” They need to really rework 230. You can’t abolish or you’ll kill the internet.

2
ColbyP 2 points ago +2 / -0

Honest I hope they do kill the internet. It's a fucking cesspool as of now. We developed it way too fast and wrote terrible laws concerning it becoming none of the old people representing the nation understood it at the time. Hell, most of them still don't know how it works but will pass laws about it anyway.

2
randomusers239874 2 points ago +2 / -0

My opinion is to keep it all the same, and go after the payment processors instead. Alt tech is viable is they didn't keep getting kicked off of payment services like paypal. There is a constitutional argument to be made that they should be treated differently too, since they generally receive benefits from the government, like FDIC insurance and such.

2
muslimporn 2 points ago +2 / -0

It should be enforced retrospectively if possible. They may have even broke existing legislation. They should also have to provide the big data on all the content removed for lawyers to rummage through to collect each case.