Bottom post of the previous page:
the shadow council has already blackbagged biden and placed trumps brain inside his head so he can have 4 more years watch the eyes watch the words follow the plan count the stitches around the brainpan its all there zoology zodiac cryptoadrenaline secret pedoplanets full of democrabots enslaving patriotoddlersTrump 2024 would be fantastic news for Democrats. Incumbents do better than challengers. Incumbent Trump lost to challenger Biden. Therefore incumbent Biden will beat challenger Trump by a larger margin than in 2020.cacogen wrote:I keep looking for a jumping in point because it's like a thicket of shitvI don't want to read but I do want to low effort shitpost about politics here as on 4channel so seeing as Sticky's recent posts seem to have a lot of buzzwords in them I'm just going to jump in and say that I look forward to when Trump is out of office so that we can start championing him as the underdog instead of getting mad at him for winning all the time even though he doesn't deserve it. His resurgence in 2024 will of course be something to behold and after four years of depressing business as usual liberal centrist Biden maybe bringing back such a detestable character will seem fun in retrospect?
First off let me just say there is nothing patriotic or democratic about winning with 6.9 million off the popular vote. Now that we have that out of the way...XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Trump just has to convince 3 states worth of elector counts to go "yep lets go against the votes".
Man that's all he gotta do. For republicans to get one term of 4 years at the executive branch.
The exchange isn't even remotely worth doing they're not going to go through with it.
Advantage of red is that the DNC is actually very happy with changing very little and puts forward people who don't change anything, when we need change. I'm hoping biden will change a lot of stuff but I doubt itXivilaiAnaxes wrote:That was basically my point - committing political suicide to take a branch for 4 years is never happening. Florida was murky enough that they could get away with it for an 8 year executive branch.
Brazenly going for 3 states (I didn't research who the electors were, 3/5 being Democrats makes it even less possible) when they all have a clear winner to get a single executive term? When the court already belongs to republicans? When dems are basically guaranteed to get a full 8 years after?
Hell no, isn't happening.
Reds best shot is hoping Biden retires 2024 for a fair shot or waiting for his 8 years for a practically uncontested 2028 win.
Here's how Trump can still wincacogen wrote:I keep looking for a jumping in point because it's like a thicket of shitvI don't want to read but I do want to low effort shitpost about politics here as on 4channel so seeing as Sticky's recent posts seem to have a lot of buzzwords in them I'm just going to jump in and say that I look forward to when Trump is out of office so that we can start championing him as the underdog instead of getting mad at him for winning all the time even though he doesn't deserve it. His resurgence in 2024 will of course be something to behold and after four years of depressing business as usual liberal centrist Biden maybe bringing back such a detestable character will seem fun in retrospect?
[youtube]9p0pdiTOlzw[/youtube]Rohen_Tahir wrote:Here's how Trump can still wincacogen wrote:I keep looking for a jumping in point because it's like a thicket of shitvI don't want to read but I do want to low effort shitpost about politics here as on 4channel so seeing as Sticky's recent posts seem to have a lot of buzzwords in them I'm just going to jump in and say that I look forward to when Trump is out of office so that we can start championing him as the underdog instead of getting mad at him for winning all the time even though he doesn't deserve it. His resurgence in 2024 will of course be something to behold and after four years of depressing business as usual liberal centrist Biden maybe bringing back such a detestable character will seem fun in retrospect?
His cabinet picks so far have lots of Obama-era people. As such, little change you can believe in. There's still lots of people to pick, but keep in mind all his selections have to pass the Senate. So even if he wanted Elizabeth Warren for SEC chair or whatever, there's no chance the GOP would let that happen. Hell, Tester and Manchin alone might torpedo nominations without any help from the opposition.Armhulen wrote: Advantage of red is that the DNC is actually very happy with changing very little and puts forward people who don't change anything, when we need change. I'm hoping biden will change a lot of stuff but I doubt it
Net Neutrality will only matter for VoD services once section 230 is repealed.MisterPerson wrote:His cabinet picks so far have lots of Obama-era people. As such, little change you can believe in. There's still lots of people to pick, but keep in mind all his selections have to pass the Senate. So even if he wanted Elizabeth Warren for SEC chair or whatever, there's no chance the GOP would let that happen. Hell, Tester and Manchin alone might torpedo nominations without any help from the opposition.Armhulen wrote: Advantage of red is that the DNC is actually very happy with changing very little and puts forward people who don't change anything, when we need change. I'm hoping biden will change a lot of stuff but I doubt it
The only exception is his FCC chair pick is a woman who'll stand up for net neutrality. Which is like the third most important issue for me, so that's pretty nice all things considered.
That'd be a bad thing, and isn't happening. At least, not in the next four years.once section 230 is repealed
Biden promised to repeal 230 too. And Trump recently threatened to veto funding for the military if 230 isn't repealed, so we might not even get the chance to hope Biden just forgets.FloranOtten wrote:That'd be a bad thing, and isn't happening. At least, not in the next four years.once section 230 is repealed
It kills all user generated content entirelly, not just social media. Well really shit owned by FB and Google might survive due to the immense profits allowing the companies to hire great lawyers and bribe their way out of court cases if that fails.Grazyn wrote:Repealing section 230 basically shuts down social networks, doesn't it? Why would it be a bad thing?
Art thou retard?The only exception is his FCC chair pick is a woman who'll stand up for net neutrality. Which is like the third most important issue for me, so that's pretty nice all things considered.
I don't want the government anywhere near my internet gtfo with thatXSI wrote:Internet laws need to be redone entirely pretty much everywhere, really. Currently it's all made by old people who don't understand the internet and it's really showing with how much bullshit can be gotten away with
Of course if they make new laws or redo the old and just make it worse, then we're fucked. So it will all depend on how many bribes they accept
Among other things, it would make MSO personally liable for everything posted on these forums. The same logic would apply everywhere (Twitter, Facebook, etc are liable for what their users upload). Rather than less censorship, it would actually invite more censorship since everything posted online would need to be looked at by actual human beings who have strong financial incentives to ere on the side of caution. That's not even getting into the field day copyright lawyers would have suing websites for memes.Grazyn wrote:Repealing section 230 basically shuts down social networks, doesn't it? Why would it be a bad thing?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5- ... echnology/thehogshotgun wrote:Art thou retard?The only exception is his FCC chair pick is a woman who'll stand up for net neutrality. Which is like the third most important issue for me, so that's pretty nice all things considered.
Grazyn wrote:Repealing section 230 basically shuts down social networks, doesn't it? Why would it be a bad thing?
What I don't understand is, why? Why would Trump do it? The international success of the alt-right was only made possible by the ability to write untrue stuff on the internet. So why stop it now? The way I see it, there may be 2 reasonsMrStonedOne wrote:Grazyn wrote:Repealing section 230 basically shuts down social networks, doesn't it? Why would it be a bad thing?
Imagine thinking that ooc being legally required to be censored of any potentially untrue statement in order to avoid a slander/libel lawsuit is a good thing.
actioninja wrote:You're missing the third option which is that trump is a total moron and just wants to do it because it screws over the tech companies that he thinks are biased against him.
I was under the impression that forums are useless for meaningful discussion, which happens elsewhere. And if OOC is so precious why is there an in-game option to disable it? Not to mention all the SS13 servers which have it disabled by default.Timonk wrote:Grazyn, are you really THAT dense?
Let me spell it out for you.
tg is affected too and will likely shut down its US servers to prevent huge DEBTS, because there is no way to pick up on everything people could say in OOC. This affects our precious forum too. No more access for Americans (probably) without a VPN. social media, heck, all websites with user created content will likely shut down in America.
Wikipedia on section 230 wrote:The passage and subsequent legal history supporting the constitutionality of Section 230 have been considered essential to the growth of Internet through the early part of the 21st century. Coupled with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Section 230 provides internet service providers safe harbors to operate as intermediaries of content without fear of being liable for that content as long as they take reasonable steps to delete or prevent access to that content.
You didn't but there's a lot of scared people in here who seem to believe this has a non-zero chance of happeningTimonk wrote:i didnt say any of this
Both parties support a 230 repeal. There will be no consequences because no other parties matter.Grazyn wrote:Let me get this straight, you guys think it's far-fetched that the GOP will use some controversial legal loophole to keep Trump in the White House because it's not worth the backlash, but at the same time you believe they will be totally on board with destroying a multitrillion-dollar industry because... some people on Twitter were mean to Trump?
>Imagine thinking anything that comes out of a politician's mouth isn't propagandacacogen wrote:Presumably Biden won't be using social media to spew propaganda and then get mad when they flag it
What's in it for them?Rohen_Tahir wrote:Both parties support a 230 repeal. There will be no consequences because no other parties matter.Grazyn wrote:Let me get this straight, you guys think it's far-fetched that the GOP will use some controversial legal loophole to keep Trump in the White House because it's not worth the backlash, but at the same time you believe they will be totally on board with destroying a multitrillion-dollar industry because... some people on Twitter were mean to Trump?
You're right that Trump is bluffing, but let me explain something about fascism. They way fascism works is you need to pretend to have an enemy that is all powerful (so that defeating them requires any means necessary), incompetent (so defeating them is fairly easy) and evil (so you don't join them). Trump is just using Facebook/Twitter as the enemy. Not "beating" them is intentional. If it wasn't them, he'd find someone else to scapegoat and blame all the problems on. It's all just to feed a victim complex of conservatives to turn them into fascists.Grazyn wrote: What I don't understand is, why? Why would Trump do it? The international success of the alt-right was only made possible by the ability to write untrue stuff on the internet. So why stop it now? The way I see it, there may be 2 reasons
-The alt-right has already won and they don't need it anymore. Whining about censoring and freedom of speech was only functional to seizing power and now it's time to silence the opposition by removing any tool they may use for a comeback. Counterargument: doesn't look like they won, Trump himself allegedly just lost the election and populist parties are still struggling in Europe
Copyrights are actually the bigger problem I think. As always.Timonk wrote:unless someone develops an ungodly filter that picks up the slightest amount of bigotry, yes.
There is no chance whatsoever that any bill removing section 230 will pass the House. Nancy Pelosi represents San Francisco. Say what you will about lobbying, but if nothing else it's effective.Grazyn wrote:You didn't but there's a lot of scared people in here who seem to believe this has a non-zero chance of happening
Trump can only veto, he can't force it. They can stall it and wait for Biden to take over, and even if Trump stays president, it still requires real, living human beings to vote for something that will destroy the economy more than a thousand covid plagues