from the not-meant-for-this-moment dept
But all the Dems on Lemmy have assured me that they were always the best hope for fighting Trump and fascism! Surely they wouldn’t have all been full of shit!
Surely they’d never lie about how their favorite sports them was the good guys! They would never approve of Trump’s cabinet picks, give him what he wants, not use the filibuster or abolish it so Republicans get what they want, publicly lie about voting no and then swapping votes last minute to enable Trump’s Enabling Acts.
Sure am glad I voted blue no matter who, it’s clearly a better choice when the constitution is being bipartisanly ripped, like it was with the Snowden leaks and USA PATRIOT Act.
Of course they did, because that’s who Democrats are. They are controlled opposition that only talk about opposing Republicans, in the end they legislate exactly like them.
It’s BAFFLING why Democratic Voters are Abandoning the Party. BAFFLING!
The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling…
It’s only baffling if you cling to the ever-more-laughable belief that the Democrats are any sort of meaningful opposition.
If you instead simply shift to the ever-more-supported belief that they are in fact essentially oligarchic co-conspirators, then the timing makes perfect sense.
Yea, both Democrats and Republicans have a pretty solid history of voting in lock step on matters of giving themselves more power.
And they expect to control the White House soon. Why not set yourself up with more power for when you get power?
The same people who regularly give us uninspiring and insipid candidates to run against demagogues and repeatedly act surprised when they lose ground expect to gain control of a White House where the current president is treating democracy as if it’s an optional hindrance – expect to take power?
If nothing else, I admire their optimism.
Isn’t this a death knell for Big Social Media?
No, because they can afford the legal fees. It will be worst for smaller sites. From the article:
With Section 230, if a website (or a user!) wants to defend its right to keep content up (or take it down), winning such a case typically costs around $100,000. Without those protections, even if you’d ultimately win on First Amendment grounds, you’re looking at about $2 million in legal fees. For Meta or Google, that’s a rounding error. For a small news site or blog, it’s potentially fatal. And this includes users who simply forward an email or retweet something they saw. Section 230 protects them as well, but without it, they’re at the whims of legal threats.
