Trump threatens defense bill veto over social media protections

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Fox News makes shit up all the time about people and is never held accountable. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to social media companies?

Probably because they have a conscious and people/companies with a conscious usually don’t fair well in our system. Only total denial works. It’s worked for trump his whole life and it’s worked for Fox multiple times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
They are not all unreachable.
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 is unreachable.

Anyone who stays at home instead of voting in 2020 is unreachable.

If you actually believe that "messaging" is what is stopping Democrats from uber winning, please, let one of them know what "message" is going to resonate with someone who thinks that Democrats are going to initiate Soviet-style socialism while taking away all their guns and forcing women to get abortions if elected.

This general election was it , in terms of figuring out where the electorate stands. And while Democrats have more voters, they're all concentrated in cities and in a few key states. If the House was expanded to about 1000 seats without absolute dogshit gerrymandering, and if the Senate was abolished for being inherent dogshit, then we wouldn't even have to worry about the current destruction of the country for the benefit of the Republican Party and its owners.

The best thing Democrats could do would be grass-roots moving out of concentrated cities and states like California, and into rural/western states where a hundred thousand Democrats here and there would be enough to take back state and federal offices. But it sure isn't about crafting some bumper sticker message that some Q Cucks Clan member is going to hear and have an epiphany and realize they've just been a useful idiot for their entire adult lives and stop enabling the destruction of this country.

These unreachable people are unreachable because they've been trained to believe that their active tearing apart this country for the benefit of the Republican Party is what will make the country great again.

That's the fucking rub.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 is unreachable.

Anyone who stays at home instead of voting in 2020 is unreachable.

If you actually believe that "messaging" is what is stopping Democrats from uber winning, please, let one of them know what "message" is going to resonate with someone who thinks that Democrats are going to initiate Soviet-style socialism while taking away all their guns and forcing women to get abortions if elected.

This general election was it , in terms of figuring out where the electorate stands. And while Democrats have more voters, they're all concentrated in cities and in a few key states. If the House was expanded to about 1000 seats without absolute dogshit gerrymandering, and if the Senate was abolished for being inherent dogshit, then we wouldn't even have to worry about the current destruction of the country for the benefit of the Republican Party and its owners.

The best thing Democrats could do would be grass-roots moving out of concentrated cities and states like California, and into rural/western states where a hundred thousand Democrats here and there would be enough to take back state and federal offices. But it sure isn't about crafting some bumper sticker message that some Q Cucks Clan member is going to hear and have an epiphany and realize they've just been a useful idiot for their entire adult lives and stop enabling the destruction of this country.

These unreachable people are unreachable because they've been trained to believe that their active tearing apart this country for the benefit of the Republican Party is what will make the country great again.

That's the fucking rub.
There are a shit ton of those 47% that have no fucking clue what is actually going on in the world and no clue what the right wing media is saying either. But republicans are able to pound the message god, guns, jobs, and country, while dems bicker about nuances in plans that will never pass congress.

Showing they care more about the military is a winning message, but instead they will run on climate change and "decency" in Georgia.

Whining about Trump being unprofessional doesn't convince anyone that you'll do better on jobs and country.

Just like until 2018 all ACA did, according to Dems, was give 20 million people coverage. News flash, no one gave a shit about those people. Finally in 2018 they started talking about what it did for everyone else, and holy shit people listened.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
If democrats were any good at messaging this would secure the Senate for them. They however suck at messaging, so republicans won't face any consequences.

They won't face any consequences because Americans have decided only Democrats will ever face consequences. The Democrats could have video of Turmp shooting every baby in a maternity ward, then eating them, and America would shrug its shoulders while Turmp supporters would say that its no worse than abortion.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
There are a shit ton of those 47% that have no fucking clue what is actually going on in the world and no clue what the right wing media is saying either. But republicans are able to pound the message god, guns, jobs, and country, while dems bicker about nuances in plans that will never pass congress.

Showing they care more about the military is a winning message, but instead they will run on climate change and "decency" in Georgia.

Whining about Trump being unprofessional doesn't convince anyone that you'll do better on jobs and country.

Just like until 2018 all ACA did, according to Dems, was give 20 million people coverage. News flash, no one gave a shit about those people. Finally in 2018 they started talking about what it did for everyone else, and holy shit people listened.

And your plan for appealing to people you openly can see are moronic assholes is what exactly? Chant lies at them like Republicans? Compromise and start supporting the horrible shit those people want?

It is? Because Turmp's done nothing but shit on the military the entire time he's been in office, yet military people are far more likely to support Turmp than the general populace. I've seen multiple ones of them openly call honored former military persons that are now Democrat politicians traitors.

Oh, I see. You're reverting back to your "centrist" fucking bullshit. The fact that you're calling pointing out Turmp fucking up everything (often intentionally so) as "whining" is very revealing.

Wow, and an extra dollop showing you're a shitty person to boot. Nice. Gee, I can't fathom why you think Democrat messaging is a failure when you think like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,299
136
Just like until 2018 all ACA did, according to Dems, was give 20 million people coverage. News flash, no one gave a shit about those people. Finally in 2018 they started talking about what it did for everyone else, and holy shit people listened.

Republicans made the choice to take a very public run at the ACA for much of 2017 into 2018 and, while failing, drew so much attention to the fallout that would ensue if they succeeded. The Dems of course capitalized on this but the actions of Trump and the GOP were instrumental in pushing it to the front of voters minds.

GOPs were just getting so relentlessly shelled at every town hall by voters that they mostly stopped doing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and Thump553

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,299
136
lol

truly curious to see if we're going to have multiple veto overrides in the next month


Screen Shot 2020-12-03 at 9.34.55 AM.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zorba

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
And they are probably getting cold feet cause they might lose the Senate ... and then what!
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,299
136
And they are probably getting cold feet cause they might lose the Senate ... and then what!

Altering 230 is extremely contentious and there isn't even a consensus inside his own party regarding what can/should be done. It is just not even remotely realistic.

Also lol at vetoing defense spending with two GOP senators in a seemingly close runoff election in GA. Super helpful to them.
 

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,004
2,025
136
Republicans made the choice to take a very public run at the ACA for much of 2017 into 2018 and, while failing, drew so much attention to the fallout that would ensue if they succeeded. The Dems of course capitalized on this but the actions of Trump and the GOP were instrumental in pushing it to the front of voters minds.

GOPs were just getting so relentlessly shelled at every town hall by voters that they mostly stopped doing them.

When Scott Walker ran for re-election in WI he touted that he would not take away people's pre-existing conditions. DJT said the same thing when he was running, except everyone knew he was trying to kill it in the background. DJT had not one accomplishment he could tout from his previous 4 years except stupid shit no one really cared about. There was no plan going forward for the next 4 years, except more stupid shit.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,299
136
When Scott Walker ran for re-election in WI he touted that he would not take away people's pre-existing conditions. DJT said the same thing when he was running, except everyone knew he was trying to kill it in the background. DJT had not one accomplishment he could tout from his previous 4 years except stupid shit no one really cared about. There was no plan going forward for the next 4 years, except more stupid shit.

Trump's lack of any clear 2020 message or agenda that he could articulate was indeed a problem. Essentially "more of the same" was not enough. Though this is one amongst MANY unforced errors he committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Altering 230 is extremely contentious and there isn't even a consensus inside his own party regarding what can/should be done. It is just not even remotely realistic.

Also lol at vetoing defense spending with two GOP senators in a seemingly close runoff election in GA. Super helpful to them.

Its a thing of beauty.
GOP senators in GA has a what .. about even odds?
Now here comes Trump. Back me or else! .. And backing Trump will increase Trumps chances of "success" from 0% to 0%(though Im sure in Trumps mind its a sure thing..), and "or else" being "Im gonna direct my base against you."
Trump is willing to sacrifice the Senate for an increased chance of 0%, to stay in power.
This is a thing of beauty, it is what happens when FYGM's begins cannibalizing their own.
 

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,004
2,025
136
Its a thing of beauty.
GOP senators in GA has a what .. about even odds?
Now here comes Trump. Back me or else! .. And backing Trump will increase Trumps chances of "success" from 0% to 0%(though Im sure in Trumps mind its a sure thing..), and "or else" being "Im gonna direct my base against you."
Trump is willing to sacrifice the Senate for an increased chance of 0%, to stay in power.
This is a thing of beauty, it is what happens when FYGM's begins cannibalizing their own.

It's almost as if it's all about him.... nah, he's the only patriot we've had in office during my lifetime, and he's draining the swamp. Do I even need an /s for this?
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,402
386
126
You realize that Anandtech Forums are also covered by section 230? Repealing it would likely shutter not just the social forums, but also the technical ones.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't believe it would. AT has plenty of moderators to manage the content posted here. Perhaps they may need more moderators who take tighter control, but I believe many forums will survive.

Facebooks issue is that it has so many users and so few content moderators it takes days to delete bad content. AT probably wipes out bad content in hours.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,088
723
126
I don't believe it would. AT has plenty of moderators to manage the content posted here. Perhaps they may need more moderators who take tighter control, but I believe many forums will survive.

Facebooks issue is that it has so many users and so few content moderators it takes days to delete bad content. AT probably wipes out bad content in hours.

That's completely dependent on whether management feels it's worth the liability. It may not happen, but it very well could.

I can't think that most forums are pulling in much money these days.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
And your plan for appealing to people you openly can see are moronic assholes is what exactly? Chant lies at them like Republicans? Compromise and start supporting the horrible shit those people want?

It is? Because Turmp's done nothing but shit on the military the entire time he's been in office, yet military people are far more likely to support Turmp than the general populace. I've seen multiple ones of them openly call honored former military persons that are now Democrat politicians traitors.

Oh, I see. You're reverting back to your "centrist" fucking bullshit. The fact that you're calling pointing out Turmp fucking up everything (often intentionally so) as "whining" is very revealing.

Wow, and an extra dollop showing you're a shitty person to boot. Nice. Gee, I can't fathom why you think Democrat messaging is a failure when you think like that.
You seriously need to seek help. Let's just write off every one that voted for trump and gas them right? How about the massive red shift along the Rio Grande, are we just going to decide that democratic base is now unreachable? Meanwhile, let's talk about shit none of them care about and bitch when they vote for the people that do talk about what they care about.

Also I never said I didn't care about the 20M people, I was clearly implying the voting public didn't. They do care about how it affects them and democrats were silent on that part for 9 years, while republicans highlighted every single negative (real and made up).

But seriously, it's a pretty lonely world when you hate everyone that has a slightly different opinion than you. So please, for your sake, get some help. And for the same of the nation, don't get in political conversations with an undecided voters because you will push them straight to the arms of the republicans.

ETA: I have no idea what even set you off. I said Dems should pound reps about not caring about the military. How does that set you off so much?
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Republicans made the choice to take a very public run at the ACA for much of 2017 into 2018 and, while failing, drew so much attention to the fallout that would ensue if they succeeded. The Dems of course capitalized on this but the actions of Trump and the GOP were instrumental in pushing it to the front of voters minds.

GOPs were just getting so relentlessly shelled at every town hall by voters that they mostly stopped doing them.
I agree, but Dems failed at selling it in 2010, 2012 and 2016. ACA helps everyone significantly, but they never tried to push that side of it. They finally figured it out when Republicans were inches from killing it.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Its a thing of beauty.
GOP senators in GA has a what .. about even odds?
Now here comes Trump. Back me or else! .. And backing Trump will increase Trumps chances of "success" from 0% to 0%(though Im sure in Trumps mind its a sure thing..), and "or else" being "Im gonna direct my base against you."
Trump is willing to sacrifice the Senate for an increased chance of 0%, to stay in power.
This is a thing of beauty, it is what happens when FYGM's begins cannibalizing their own.
Trump doesn't and has never given two fucks about the GOP having power, just him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Hey ... If Section 230 is repealed, Twitter and Facebook are going to dump his sorry ass first thing. No way they’re letting him keep an account if they’re legally liable for the shit he pours forth every day.

That part is a win-win.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Hey ... If Section 230 is repealed, Twitter and Facebook are going to dump his sorry ass first thing. No way they’re letting him keep an account if they’re legally liable for the shit he pours forth every day.

That part is a win-win.
Yeah. Either social media cleans up or become old school /b/. If they clean up, no more systematic right wing lies (or at least far fewer). If the become /b/ the vast majority of people will leave. So either sounds like a good outcome to me.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Yeah. Either social media cleans up or become old school /b/. If they clean up, no more systematic right wing lies (or at least far fewer). If the become /b/ the vast majority of people will leave. So either sounds like a good outcome to me.
The thing to remember is that this is not about fixing a problem, this is a good old fashioned shake down. Trump is saying, 'Nice social media platform you have there, be a shame is something happened to it.'
Trump is blackmailing a private company in broad daylight to give him special treatment and using the official powers of his office to do it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,873
136
Yeah. Either social media cleans up or become old school /b/. If they clean up, no more systematic right wing lies (or at least far fewer). If the become /b/ the vast majority of people will leave. So either sounds like a good outcome to me.
They will not clean up. In cases like Anandtechforums they will simply cease to exist and in the case of other social media with greater means they will move overseas to escape liability because it would be literally impossible to operate otherwise. So yes, they become /b/ and then everyone leaves for some Russian version of Facebook that doesn't face the same liability concerns.

In a nutshell, section 230 says liability is on the person who makes the statement, something I imagine we all agree with.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
The thing to remember is that this is not about fixing a problem, this is a good old fashioned shake down. Trump is saying, 'Nice social media platform you have there, be a shame is something happened to it.'
Trump is blackmailing a private company in broad daylight to give him special treatment and using the official powers of his office to do it.

Of course. I don't think this is actually a good idea or ethical. I'm just saying if he got his way it'd likely hurt him worse than his made up issues.

In a nutshell, section 230 says liability is on the person who makes the statement, something I imagine we all agree with.

While I agree with 230 in general, platforms should've held liable for the massive amounts harm they do. From YouTube and PornHub completely ignoring copyrights and Facebook spreading completely bogus misinformation and calls to violence.

Q will never be held liable, but the platforms that targeted susceptible people with extreme precision to sell ads should be for the damage they've done to those people. Really what Facebook and YouTube have done with Q is much worse than same anon shitpostting on 8chan.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
They will not clean up. In cases like Anandtechforums they will simply cease to exist and in the case of other social media with greater means they will move overseas to escape liability because it would be literally impossible to operate otherwise. So yes, they become /b/ and then everyone leaves for some Russian version of Facebook that doesn't face the same liability concerns.

In a nutshell, section 230 says liability is on the person who makes the statement, something I imagine we all agree with.

Yup.

I don’t think people quite understand the legal history behind Section 230.

The short history is before Section 230 both CompuServe and Prodigy were sued back in the 90’s for things their users posted on their respective services.

CompuServe specifically said they did not moderate their content and because of that the judge threw the case against them out as the offending content was deemed to be from another user not CompuServe.

Prodigy on the other hand did moderate content to be more family friendly. When they were sued on a similar issue the judge ruled against Prodigy specifically because they moderated their content. With attempted moderation failing to remove the offending content the judge ruled Prodigy was now responsible for its user created content.

Congress said, shit we don’t want companies trying to keep porn, snuff films and threats off their sites to be held accountable if they fail for simply trying so they passed section 230 of the internet decency act.

After that advertisers were more willing to support sites with user generated content.

If section 230 is struck down then only two kinds of content sites will be legally viable.

Wholly corporate controlled content where the content creators are contracted by the company and subject to editorial review (Like news sites) or /b/ style anything goes no moderation what so ever sites.

Of course the problem with running a /b/ style site is whose going to contribute money. 99% of advertisers wouldn’t touch a site where scat porn and death threats were common posts.

So forums like AT would have huge financial and legal risks with virtually no upside. Think Intel, AMD, etc will advertise here if every other post here is two girls one cup, spam and personal threats? Same goes for YouTube, Twitter, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie