I will note that this is basically what we learned after Oklahoma City and after other domestic terror attacks — the FBI basically running up afterwards all “whoa I totally forgot to tell you, uh”
Why that is, well, I will leave my views on that to other platforms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is, for many, a defined line between their ideological beliefs and their policy desires (see: the swath of human events.) QAnon people who are convinced that the Pope was arrested for incest are not going to be dissuaded from thinking that by introducing postal banking.
Also, as anyone who has been alive might know, people can be economically comfortable but still driven by a ceaseless rage to do violence and cause pain for other people whom they do not like for various reasons.
This is wrong. Just wrong. Eliminating Section 230 would remove the means by which Twitter and any site that has third party content CAN AND DO moderate content.
“People could still discuss politics, until someone sues Twitter because I called them a belligerent raccoon for deliberately misrepresenting the pay-go rule.”
The end of Section 230 is the veritable end of third-party user content, because no one can afford that level of liability protection and would sooner blow it up than risk hundreds of lawsuits per second.
There’s not a commission on earth that will convince the people who want to believe Trump secretly won because he had boat parades and they don’t know anyone who voted for Biden otherwise.
What’s weird is that in 2012 there was a lot of “Romney will win by a landslide” pieces in conservative media and elsewhere and somehow that did not resulted in a hamclammered storming of the Capitol led by a credit card fraudster and helped along by Holocaust deniers. Huh.