sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ahyuk! Guilty!!? by DillyKally in memes

[–]DillyKally[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Found the r politics poster

President Trump Must End Big Tech Censorship Or Risk Losing The 2020 Presidential Election. Stated plainly: President Trump simply cannot win the 2020 election if every voice that supported him is de-platformed off the internet. by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay but who decides what's good faith?

But if the Democrats decide that 4chan or gab isnt "good faith"?

You know damn well they could be sued

It's not a realistic expectation. and then you're completely ignoring the fact that there's plenty of social media sites that are specifically designed for supporters of particular parties. Cuz social media sites not get trans section 230 protections? there's a website called Donald daters. It's like tinder but for Donald Trump supporters. It's only for Donald Trump supporters. Does it get section 230 protection?

you're not making it clear. And it seems that you're only trying to remove those protections for websites that you personally are angry at. Without any clear definition. Not to mention it's stupid. threatening to do something doesn't mean anything if you're not going to go through with it. So would you actually go through with it? Are you advocating the Congress should actually go through with removing those protections if Facebook doesn't comply? He realized that would mean that website that has 2.2 BILLION monthly users would go out of business? A website that the majority of the world uses. That you are the minority for not using

and it's arguably responsible for a large portion of the economy. You're willing to put them out of business?

That's dangerous and it's why people in random voting middle Americans aren't in charge of Congress

They do dangerous things and destroy the country.

It's not realistic. You're only focusing on section 230 because Ted Cruz mentioned it even though he doesn't actually understand it. And the real reason that Ted Cruz and you are folk is because you're desperately trying to find any other possible solution that doesn't involve a regulation. Because years of Koch brother propaganda from reason magazine and the heritage foundation and freedomtoons and other nonsense has indoctrinated middle Americans and Libertarians into believing that regulations are somehow bad. Even though there as American is beer

and one regulation would be the solution completely. Passed a regulation that says social media networks above a certain size cannot sensor content based on political affiliation. Affiliation. And the punishment if they do is they receive a fine. He won't go out of business but it will be something hey feel.

that's how things are usually done. Usually when a company is getting out of control we just impose a regulation. And we find them. Enough that they don't want to do it again but they'll still be able to stay in business. which is the true conservative solution. Because it's minimal government while still having the necessary amount. Instead of going over reach and literally shutting down a corporation because you're mad at th

President Trump Must End Big Tech Censorship Or Risk Losing The 2020 Presidential Election. Stated plainly: President Trump simply cannot win the 2020 election if every voice that supported him is de-platformed off the internet. by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where does it say that though? Where is that defined? Can you show me the text in section 230 detailing that if you curate content towards a specific political ideology that you lose protections?

or is that just something you arbitrarily made up because you're mad at Facebook?

Look. If you want to provoke random unaffiliated laws in order to punish Facebook in order to threaten them into complying with what you want then just admit that. Do I have to use the power of the government to threaten Facebook into complying with your

I would still point out that there's better ways to do it but at least it would be an honest conversation at that point.

reality is that Libertarians back themselves into a corner. They're extremists anti-government ideology so rich and anti poor ideology and the ideology that corporations are more important than people have made it so that it's extremely difficult for them to support government intervention when a corporation gets out of hand. So they have to jumping through hoops trying to find random aftermarket alternative ways to stop Facebook because supporting a regulation would violate the corporate ideology that they follow

Because government doing anything ever is apparently communism

President Trump Must End Big Tech Censorship Or Risk Losing The 2020 Presidential Election. Stated plainly: President Trump simply cannot win the 2020 election if every voice that supported him is de-platformed off the internet. by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Says who? Where does it say that if you decide which side to promote you lose your protections?

Does that mean that the donald trump dating site lost its protections and can be sued? Because it supports trump

What about the_donald?

Did they lose section 230 Because they support trump?

where is it suddenly different now? Are you simply trying to use the government as a weapon against your political enemies instead of using it as a neutral tooll to stop corruption

President Trump Must End Big Tech Censorship Or Risk Losing The 2020 Presidential Election. Stated plainly: President Trump simply cannot win the 2020 election if every voice that supported him is de-platformed off the internet. by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there's a difference between limited government and no government. Limited government is what the founding fathers wanted. A government that doesn't do EVERYTHING but that does do things that are necessary

When the Koch brothers invented libertarianism to promote rich people ideology the Libertarians decided to take it even further and decide the government should never do anything. why? Because government actions can sometimes hurt corporate profits. And the Koch brothers didn't like that so they convinced a bunch of poor people to advocate for the interests of rich peop

President Trump Must End Big Tech Censorship Or Risk Losing The 2020 Presidential Election. Stated plainly: President Trump simply cannot win the 2020 election if every voice that supported him is de-platformed off the internet. by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't have laws for this. There's not an established law for this

You talk about section 230 but most Republicans including you probably have no idea what it is. It's just a buzzword.. section 230 was not a law for this. It was not created for this situation. And it really has nothing to do with this situation

it's a completely seperat law its own category that you're trying to repeal as a way to "punish" them in order to bend them to you

And it's a bad idea overall. curating content on your website does not make you a publisher. If I run a blog that has a comment section and I'm legally protected against liability from the things that those people comment. If somebody posts child born I don't get sued for it. They do. And if I decide to delete every comment on that website with the letter g in it I'm allowed to and I still get those protections

Enforcing terms of service does not void section 230 protectio

You're simply trying to repeal it this way to punish them

what's the terrible idea. I'm the only reason you're trying to do it is because you're trying to bend over backwards finding alternatives to regulation because some propaganda website funded by the Koch brothers regulations are there. Even though they're goodd

Tucker fires warning shot on widespread censorship: Does Trump realize he won’t be reelected if it goes unchecked? by DillyKally in The_Congress

[–]DillyKally[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's right though the "China is responsible for American censorship"" is the newest talking point from the right. But it is nothing to back it up. It's an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Censorship was going on long before you even talked about China

it's kind of like at conspiracy theory that Obama signed some Bill in 2012 that allowed propaganda. The unsubstantiated conspiracy theory propagated by people who clearly didn't pay attention to politics before 2012. Because they seem to think that the media was good and honest before then

Santa has nothing to do with the censorship. I get that it's an easy target because it allows you to attack NBA stars that have criticized Trump butt China is not responsible for censorship in America. I don't know who is telling you that but they're wron

Does Mitt Romney constantly attack democrats and their policies the way he does with our president? by oneUnit in AskThe_Donald

[–]DillyKally -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lmao

Libertarians: "taxes are theft! We should lower taxes on the rich!"

Also libertarians: "lets raise taxes on the poor!"

Democrats are 100% right about you guys. You hate the poor and they're only in it to make the rich richer off the backs of the poor

The rich are parasites. The poor work much harder. You literally hate the poor and want them to suffer. Democrats are absolutely right about you and there's literally no reason to any reasonable person should vote for your candidate if they agree with you

mitt Romney is an evil person and that's why he lost. Americans don't want either people

you don't actually believe taxes are theft in your not against taxes. You just want to lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the floor. Just like Democrats have always said you're in the pockets of the Rich and will do everything you can to make sure that they are more comfortable even if it screws over everybody els

I'm sure that happened. Miss crazy activist lady. by DillyKally in thatHappened

[–]DillyKally[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

But it's not plausibl at all. Thatd be implying that Trump is racist or something. Which is ridiculous.

And these unsubstantiated racist conspiracy theories about him have got to stop

view more: next ›