this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
104 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3219 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Supposedly he's gunning for Section 230. Geniuses like Clownfish TV think this would be a good thing, then wonders if it might bite "content creators".

Yah think? If the qons get rid of Section 230, you think platforms will let these yahoos spew their nonsense w/o fear of being sued for it? LOLOLOL....

Also: why do the qons think they are being censored? WTF? All I see is their stuff being pushed, all the time. Where is the leftist equivalent, FFS?

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This was debate during trump's first term. While originally I was for preserving Section 230, after thinking about it, I'm starting to have doubts if it serves is well though.

It originally was created when there were forums, Usenet etc run by hobbyists. And it was a non brainier. It was needed, but after 30 years corporations came and basically built their media empires (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc) on a law that removes any accountability from them unlike traditional media. They don't produce content but they control algorithms that decide content that you see.

The section 230 at this point is obsolete and perhaps needs to go and maybe be replaced with a better law.

Sadly I don't expect a good alternative coming from the upcoming administration.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That sort of locks in the big players, though, right? If you aren't making Facebook money, how are you going to afford the liability? What happens to a Lemmy or Mastodon instance with a budget of $2500/yr if the operators suddenly become legally liable for what people say on them? What if they are legally liable for what someone in another instance says which then gets federated?

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Yep, this. I think the marks are told "Big Tech" ( which they imagine are being run by liberals) that they are doing something very liberal and must be punished, because something something Hunter's hard drive, oops, I mean "lap top".

I think the reality will be that, yes, all the people running siren servers will consolidate yet even more power and the Internet as a two-way medium is effectively over.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago

The “leftist equivalent” is called reality, and that’s what they want to ban.