The grand father carried on walking, shouting back every now and again for her to catch up and she would have to run passed hundreds of starfish.

The grand father waited for her to catch up asked 'why are you throwing them back, look, there are millions of them, you wont even make a dent. It won't matter'

She looks up at him with a starfish in her hands and says 'it will matter to this one.'

On that note I'm going to sleep. Night folks.

Good night.

@pratel you missed the point. The same protections they currently have under 230 they would still have IF they do not moderate posts. That is the only thing that 230 was originally made to grant websites, the ability to moderate and still be treated as a platform not a publisher. They might get by with still banning people (the equivalent of a library not stalking a book), maybe not. a new set of precedence would need to be set again. It has nothing to do with blocking the SPLC. In fact, their sue happy nature is what would do our job for us: either kill these sites forcing all their users onto the alternatives floating around, or force these sites to abandon their current practices for self preservation.

in fact, 230 is basically how we got to here.

so rather than repeal a bad law, you'd like to give the government more poweR?

That's not what I'm getting when I read section 230. You keep saying they "get to eat their cake and eat it too" but I'm just not seeing it. Do you have a source on this?

Why do you feel the need to kill these sites so bad? The alternatives will just as likely be worse. And you're missing the point of the SPLC. They sue anyone they *don't* like into oblivion. The people who would censor as the SPLC would like, or would not pick the fight would get by fine. Self preservation is *not* getting into a lawsuit. Twitter isn't going to just pick fights until it dies. They just censor harder.

What needs to happen is that section 230 about the public square needs to be enforced. The tech companies shouldn't be allowed to just remove people and products off their platform without them doing something illegal (like child porn)

Actually, when I read up on section 230, I read it's controversial precisely because it shelters platforms like Twitter when user post "harmful", "hateful" or illegal content.

In other words, it's doing exactly what I would say it should--removing the platforms from responsibility so they can host everyone fairly.

Also, we're kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Either all culture, news and politics flows through Google or the government at this point. Neither option is really good. But that's the choice.

https://youtu.be/IV-pOKB4AzU

Does California do controlled burns?

@pratel https://youtu.be/grjZiTN1G5Q?t=144
https://youtu.be/IVHY2ET55ss?list=PLZPfh3siCIO16oXknMEG1cW51-yOYYPKf&t=193
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.

"when you review the history of the law... you would find the law was actually put there for the opposite reason, it was actually there to advance more policing of user generated content, not less."

section 230 basically grew out of a lawsuit that argued a website which moderates user content should be found to be a publisher (like a newspaper), not a platform (like a library). Thus open to a liable lawsuit. The website defended moderation that it was just to police foul language, and so the section 230 was passed to allow websites to police user content as they see fit, under the idea they are making it "safer and cleaner for everyone" while still not holding them accountable for user content.

Good afternoon.
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1038759713024798720

Chris Cuomo defends Obama’s spying on journalists. Says he rather be spied on, than be called the fake news enemy of the people.

https://youtu.be/VZgi6kH45gk

the app was already deslisted and needs to be sideloaded anyways

“ Ex-Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos gets 14-day jail term” by C. Ryan Barber on The National Law Journal

A few things to note about this sentencing.

1. Papadopoulos was ONLY being charged with lying to the FBI. It was literally his only crime. Nothing else he did was illegal.

2. The max penalty for this crime is six months. The minimum is zero. Yes, zero.

3. The defense pushed for zero months, and the prosecution pushed for 6 months. The FBI claimed his “ lies negatively affected the FBI’s Russian investigation and prevented the FBI from effectively identifying and confronting witnesses in a timely fashion.” And because of this they pushed for the max sentence. The defense claimed he was a fool over his head that meant no harm, and was deeply remorseful.

4. The judge gave him a 14 day jail term. Which falls within the 0-6 months jail term for the crime. He didn’t give zero, because he wanted to show the world that lying to the FBI has consequences. The judge didn’t give him six, because he believed that Papadopoulos had sincere remorse.

It’s also in line with the Jail term Alexander Van Der Zwaan received for lying to the FBI. He got 30 days.

All the facts here BTFO any argument that the FBI went easy on him because he was “flipping and singing”
The FBI claimed the exact opposite, and wanted the harshest penalty possible.

http://archive.today/5Ewkd

Wow

That does actually sound shady

FBIs grasping at straws

Mueller might just be holding out for an interview with Trump at this point. There's not really much else left for him. Flynn trial is over, Manafort trial is over, Papadopoulos trial is over, Cohen trial is over. Doesn't seem like anything leads to further trials.

They will find a way

THey said impeachment will come from all the prior trials

ANd judging from their responses so far. DOubtful they will let it lie

There's some speculation that they might try to use Cohen as a witness against Trump but unless they have tapes of some unambiguous criminal activity it'll just be one man's word against anothers and Cohen is not a particularly credible witness.

One thing that we can be sure of. If there are any straws left to grasp at, Mueller will grasp them.

I mean, its nice and all they they want the president to be accountable and shit.

It will also be hard to get him on campaign finance when the FEC hasn’t pointed to any wrong doing.

But where were these fuckers when obama was around?

Or Bush

Another possibility is that Mueller does wrap up the investigation, but gives a press conference to give some kind of closing statement. He might say that he wasn't able to prove any wrong-doing, but that Trump acted in stupid or unethical ways. Basically implying that he's a criminal like Comey implied against Hillary.

Exactly. Let’s do an open ended investigation on the Clinton and Bush families. I wonder how that would turn out.

Save that for the last two weeks before the mid-terms for maximum damage.

A good bet. We’ll see

Honestly though I seriously doubt Trumps gonna be capable of cleaning house in the FBI

The secrecy of the org means that the only way to hold people accountable is through blackmail

The best way.

And if dont stick, theres nothing to leash you