Dude should have thought of that before he put Section 230 in a trade deal so now it can't be repealed or easily changed by him or anyone prospect.org/power/section-…
And every idiot dittohead screaming about social media bias should know that their guy Trump etched Section 230 into stone through the very globalist tactics he spent his 2016 campaign decrying
I don't like how Section 230 allows platforms to, for example, circumvent consumer product safety laws. But the Covid-infected moron running the country made this impossible to fix prospect.org/power/right-wa…
It makes me mad because I broke the story that a version of Section 230 was going into the new NAFTA, in July 2018, WELL OVER A YEAR before the trade agreement got approved, and nobody gave a damn. Now Section 230 is a problem? Where were you all?

inthesetimes.com/working/entry/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Dayen

David Dayen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ddayen

29 Sep
Just one example of how to fix the terrible inequities in the tax code so it doesn't privilege the rich comes from the source of Trump's audit: the $72.9 million refund for carryback losses. Why was that refund given, and THEN checked out?
As the Times notes, the Joint Committee on Taxation reviews every refund of over $2 million to individuals. Why do we GIVE THE REFUND first and then review it?
JCT could review and only release the funds afterward. Anyone entitled to a refund of over $2 million is highly unlikely to need that refund quickly.
Read 6 tweets
27 Sep
The policy solution to #TrumpTaxReturns is to cap or ban carry-forward losses. Ordinary schlubs see parking meters reset, lest they get a break of 50 cents. For rich real estate developers the losses they conjure last forever. Easily fixed.
We have a tax code that is enormously favorable to real estate developers that can steal from their own companies and report dubious losses. Congress also has the ability to remedy that.
"He took advantage of a provision of the Great Recession bailout that allowed income from canceled debt to be completely deferred for five years, then spread out evenly over the next five"
Sadly #TrumpTaxReturns reflect the bipartisan mangling of the tax code to serve the rich
Read 6 tweets
24 Sep
So this is "off the news" but a very important piece, I think, from Mara Kardas-Nelson about Georgetown, Texas. (1/)

prospect.org/environment/wh…
Georgetown went "100% green" several years ago, getting a lot of acclaim as a red town in a red state. What they actually did was buy a bunch of green credits through Texas's deregulated energy trading system.
prospect.org/environment/wh…
This locked in prices. They even bought excess energy that they thought they'd be able to sell back to the grid.
Then the fracking boom came. The trading stopped. Georgetown was stuck. And they're no longer 100% renewable. prospect.org/environment/wh…
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep
So back in December, @JonWalkerDC wrote a piece for us showing that the threat to the Affordable Care Act from litigation before the Supreme Court could be neutralized with a one-line bill. Since that's more important than ever, we re-ran that today.

prospect.org/health/pelosi-…
The lawsuit says that if the individual mandate is $0 it's not a tax, therefore the whole bill must fall.
It's a dumb lawsuit.
But the solution is: repeal the individual mandate. No mandate, no lawsuit.
There's an active fight right now over the must-pass government funding bill. McConnell wants money for a farm bailout in it. Pelosi could demand this one-line rider go in, to save the ACA.
This could happen right now, but we've been arguing this since *December*
Read 6 tweets
18 Sep
I'm so old I remember all the point-and-laugh stories in 2016 about the Trump campaign's complete lack of a ground game, so in some sense I think we have a clue about how much such things matter in presidential politics wired.com/2016/10/trumps…
That said I think the difference between, say, 2008 and now is that all organizing then was under the banner of MyBO, and today there are lots of organizations doing their own recruiting and organizing under separate banners, making it harder to discern.
Go to mobilize.us, there are like 3,000 different organizations doing work.
Read 4 tweets
15 Sep
OK, up at @TheProspect, an escalation in the battle over corporate control of the Democratic Party.
Committee chair Raul Grijalva is calling for a total ban on corporate officers and lobbyists for any Senate-confirmed position in the next administration prospect.org/politics/congr…
Progressive groups have been asking for a lobbyist band but this is the first House Democrat seeking support from his colleagues for a formal ban.
Biden has not yet committed to even the weaker Obama lobbyist restriction. prospect.org/politics/congr…
Trump actually pledged a lobbyist "ban" that has been totally ignored.
Drain the swamp and anti-corruption has been a major issue in the past couple elections, but not this one. The Grijalva rule could put it back on the radar. prospect.org/politics/congr…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!