Post AVnCvSrm8WgiyImojo by jgordon@appdot.net
(DIR) More posts by jgordon@appdot.net
(DIR) Post #AVn7eLXJdWhtXoEbdg by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T21:04:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Wow, the hatred against Big Tech was just pouring out in torrents on CNN in the wake of the *correct* unanimous Supreme Court decision today. So many people who don't understand the Internet want to destroy it.
(DIR) Post #AVnCvSrm8WgiyImojo by jgordon@appdot.net
2023-05-18T22:03:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren The right is more angry at capitalism than the left. Has that ever happened before?
(DIR) Post #AVnDRxBExuwSFtNngu by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T22:09:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jgordon This is totally bipartisan. Most of these attacks are bipartisan legislation, and some of the worst have been introduced by Democrats (there are plenty of bad ones from the GOP too).
(DIR) Post #AVnEjYliZ9PXi7P7CK by realtegan@wandering.shop
2023-05-18T22:23:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren We're talking about Twitter v. Taamneh, the case that wanted to hold Twitter (and FB and Google) responsible for content posted by ISIS? The decision by the court that protects Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which in turn allows the internet to function?I do not consider the current Supreme Court to be legitimate, but yeah, this one was not an incorrect decision.
(DIR) Post #AVnF1SBFnbmmUSsfT6 by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T22:26:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realtegan And unanimous. And opinion written by Thomas!
(DIR) Post #AVnFzmSbWnuIlJlKkq by volkris@qoto.org
2023-05-18T22:37:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@laurenI think it’s more people who don’t understand legislation.Yeah, people only have vague notions about how the internet works, but they’ll have outright wrong ideas about what legislation actually says even as they express passionate opinions about it!
(DIR) Post #AVnGAj2sZ5mNM9wsQS by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T22:39:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@volkris More to the point I think, most of them are willing to throw away the First Amendment to "protect the children" from anything that anyone feels is "objectionable." Polls are scary as hell about this.
(DIR) Post #AVnGKCfTnYRPprWUaW by volkris@qoto.org
2023-05-18T22:39:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realteganNo, the opinion didn’t have anything to do with section 230. It was about a different law, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.Twitter was sued under that act, and the Court found that that act didn’t apply to this case. @lauren
(DIR) Post #AVnGKDGLaTvpgClw3M by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T22:41:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@volkris @realtegan 230 was looming over it all. These decisions are widely viewed as specifically pushing the broad issues of 230 off to another day (and new state laws are bringing that day forward rapidly).
(DIR) Post #AVnGQLLoQe5oVCFfKS by volkris@qoto.org
2023-05-18T22:42:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@laurenYeah, and to put a point on it as an example, I so often hear people say we need to get rid of section 230 to protect the kids when they clearly don’t realize that 230 was specifically written to encourage protection of kids.If that person knew what the law actually said they might have the opposite opinion to the one they’re literally yelling about.
(DIR) Post #AVnUhvMdBUvqTaubT6 by jgordon@appdot.net
2023-05-19T01:22:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren Bipartisan perhaps but nobody does anger like the reds.