Why would Democrats be so adamant about not repealing 230/setting up election commission?

[Proud liberal 80]

If they are included with the $2000 payments...I mean, with those two issues I could care less either way...those aren’t two liberal causes...don’t know why the Dems would care, I would call Mitch’s bluff

#1 repeal of section 230: to me, it seems like this would hurt republicans and conservatives more...I don’t know why Trump and conservatives would want it repealed....if I understand it, the law protects companies like Twitter and Facebook from being sued for what users post....so with the repeal I think that the companies would censor more not less...which is bad news for conservatives because they seem to be more prone to post off the wall crazy shit that would get them sued

#2 election fraud commission....do we need one? No...but what’s the harm...Biden will still be POTUS...I doubt the commission will find any credible findings....and maybe this would shut up the crazies and their theories

Again, I don’t think these actions are needed, but if this is what it takes to give Americans $2000 I don’t see the big deal

[atreides1]

1. Because

It applies to literally every website. Including the comments section of The Hill, for example. It also protects you from getting sued for retweeting or forwarding an email.

Repealing Section 230 would lead to MORE censorship on the Internet, not less. If you don't like the way Twitter and Facebook do content moderation now, wait until they're making those decisions based on whether they think your post might catch them an expensive lawsuit!

[Blue_true]

14. You didn't post a justification for not repealing Section 230.

The provision has allowed the right to run amuck with lies and distortions, yet it is Democrats defending against it's revision or outright demise. Just imagine when Trump was posting birther nonsense on Twitter, if a citizen that felt harmed by his conduct had sued him, maybe that nonsense would have stopped. The same logic applies to Qanon, if their moderators keep getting sued for the corrosive stuff that they are putting online, maybe they would rethink.

Truth has NOTHING to fear, Lies do.

[NutmegYankee]

28. Section 230 specifically ALLOWS moderation.

Removing it will either force sites to close or to not moderate at all. You clearly are mistaken in what 230 does.

[Blue_true]

43. Trump was not moderated for years on Facebook and Twitter.

My point is they were not doing the job you claim they had the right to do. What is the value of moderation that is not used. They allowed lies to be told with damaging consequences to the targets of Trump. With Section 230 modified, Trump and platforms that facilitated his lies could be sued by the many people that Trump victimized while using those platforms.

btw, you were wrong about counter-suits, at least in my state of Florida. If a person is sued and is on solid ground, the defendant can file a counterclaim against the person suing. Once the counterclaim is won, that sets up a suit against the person that sued, using the facts that were established in the original case - that is a tall wall against people bringing frivolous lawsuits.

[NutmegYankee]

47. People always could sue Trump.

You just want to end the internet.

[Blue_true]

51. I want to make the Internet the tool for positive intellectual exchange

that it was designed to do. When companies like Facebook and Twitter are routinely failing at a requirement to either remove lies or post warnings with them, then there should be consequences to them Hillary Clinton and Speaker Pelosi should be able to sue Facebook and Twitter for allowing Trump to spew lies about them on those platforms uncontrolled for years, lies that lead to a person trying to kill both of them (the Magabomber).

[NutmegYankee]

55. Read up on Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. and get back to me.

The only protection was to NOT moderate at all. Think every social media site as a 4chan.

[Demsrule86]

38. No citizen has deep enough pockets to sue Trump...you seriously don't understand how it all works.

[Volaris]

92. The short answer is because we care about their Right to free speech,

Even if they dont...
Because we understand their right to it, even tho THEY DONT.

yes, theres an argument for letting it lapse for a bit just to prove a point. But I'm ultimately not in the camp that says that's ok.

(On Edit) if defending that Right, isnt a vote they're willing to let me win for the sake of 2 grand ONCE, I personally cant do much about that in the immediate context, and the chips can fall where they may; twitter facebook and parler can shut their shit down for a while till they figure it out. But again, imma defend their Right, even IF they think doing so is a bad idea (cause I'm NOT a fascist...that's just how this works in my mind).

Understandably, YMMV.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Why do you think the repeal should be tied to Covid relief,

and why do you think it should be done without due deliberation? Why do you think we should give Trump something that he wants so badly? Why do you think he wants it so much that he's willing to hold the American people hostage over it?

[Blue_true]

48. No. But McConnell appears to be set to tie it to the relief.

Section 230 has not been good for fair and just public discourse, Facebook and Twitter have failed at removing knowingly viscous content. This is not a apples and oranges situation, McConnell will give Democrats a choice, hold on to Section 230 or take $2,000 for people that need it, I am saying give up Section 230 if given that choice, the protection HAS NOT done what many here are claiming that it has, in fact, it has done the opposite and my feeling is republicans will rue getting rid of it once the consequences to them become obvious.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. So you want what Mitch and Trump want.

And you feel certain that whatever they want here will be on the side of truth, honor and free speech, even if they don't realize it. And you don't even think that there should be deliberations or a thorough public examination of the potential ramifications.

I don't know whether you are naive or being deliberately disingenuous.

[Blue_true]

75. I am perfectly willing to stand and watch both of them stab themselves

with a knife that they crafted. My fundamental argument, and NO ONE has taken that on, is that removal of Section 230 will force companies to censure malicious information, that will dramatically HURT people like Trump and republicans. My point is that give people the $2,000 while allowing Trump and McConnell to cut their own throats.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Just noted that Mitch is holding the American people hostage, and that we should give in to him.

Again, naive or disingenuous?

[Blue_true]

76. I am not proposing giving in. I am proposing letting Trump and McConnell

cut their own throats. Repeal of Section 230 will dramatically hurt republicans given the behavior of that party for decades, that is a reality that people debating me appear to be completely missing.

People tout the warnings Twitter is putting on Trumps most recent posts, where have Twitter, Facebook and Google been since 2010 when Trump started his birther shit? My argument is that they have been absent in doing the task that Section 230 gave them the right to do, so why cling on to Section 230 and give up giving people $2,000. In my world, given how bad social media companies have been at enforcing Section 230, it is not worth saving it, tear it the hell down, let social media companies censure that then let republicans come crying back to the table to redress having all their shit deleted, at that point Democrats can drive toward a new legislation, ALONG with stiff penalties for social media companies if they sit on the asses and do nothing about vicious lies, like they did with Section 230

[Crunchy Frog]

88. So disingenuous it is then. Thanks for letting us know.

[Blue_true]

90. I am not trying to be a smart ass.

McConnell likely really believe that Democrats won't give up Section 230, and he knows that if that happens, it helps republicans in more ways than one. Hate him as we do, the man is a skilled parliamentarian and knows how to set legislative traps. I think Speaker Pelosi is more than his equal, I am not as sure about Schumer, hopefully Schumer is consulting with Speaker Pelosi on how to handle McConnell.

On the investigate the 2020 election, that is a totally cynical ploy that even McConnell knows will fail. If it was me, I would be ok with that as long an an equal member Joint House/Senate group ran the investigation and not leave it in the hands of Ron Johnson or Graham.

[Blue_true]

49. No. But McConnell appears to be set to tie it to the relief.

Section 230 has not been good for fair and just public discourse, Facebook and Twitter have failed at removing knowingly viscous content. This is not a apples and oranges situation, McConnell will give Democrats a choice, hold on to Section 230 or take $2,000 for people that need it, I am saying give up Section 230 if given that choice, the protection HAS NOT done what many here are claiming that it has, in fact, it has done the opposite and my feeling is republicans will rue getting rid of it once the consequences to them become obvious.

[Hortensis]

62. And doesn't that tell you something? The legal issues and effects

are pretty complex and take study.

But what is entirely clear is that McConnell and his "corrupt corporatists" are trying to blackmail Democrats by tying emergency aid to a nation in trouble to a full repeal of Section 230. Isn't that clearly very, very, very bad of them? If I knew nothing else, I'd know letting them have their way can't be good.

But one more thing I do know: McConnell is demanding something he knows the Democrats can't give way on as a chess move -- so he can lie to the nation that it wasn't he who blocked the $2000 checks, it was the Democrats.

Don't be fooled.

[Blue_true]

74. Removal of Section 230 will force social media companies to censure

some posts, imo, that is not a bad thing since the worst offenders by far have been republicans, Trump and trumpists. I am not fooled, I see the tradeoff very clearly, do you?

[Hortensis]

77. No, I lack the simplifying gene. Both parties have agreed for years

that it needed amending but have been unable to agree how. I think we desperately need some control on the toxic dissemination of massive deceptions, in conjunction with protections of other freedom of speech, but of course neither would be among McConnell's goals if he was sincerely trying to get it repealed.

[Blue_true]

78. Social media companies have failed to follow Section 230.

Twitter started doing so only recently, under massive pressure from the public. Section 230, as social media companies have treated it, is like breasts on a bull, thoroughly useless for the main function. I say get rid of it and give people that need it the $2,000.

[Hortensis]

81. To me it has nothing to do with a check I'd receive, but I have

to agree that getting or not getting money is easy to understand.

I'm out, Blue. Have a great evening looking forward to the new year.

[Blue_true]

85. I am not about the money, although people that need it should get it.

My position on Section 230 is based upon the fact that social media companies have woefully failed to use it as intended, allowing all types of filthy lies to flood the Internet.

You have a great year also. 2020 has actually been a very good year for me, but I realize that has not been the case for a lot of people, including many here on DU, so I hope for a wonderful 2021 for everyone, and hopefully the pain that some are feeling now lessens some with time, I know from personal experience that it will.

Take care

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

Of course Twitter has been following Section 230, from the start. There have always been things it removes, and it's always said "you can't sue us for what the users write".

Section 230 produced social media. It almost defines social media.

[Blue_true]

94. The interesting thing is I didn't say any of the "if you said".

My point was simply, social media companies have roundly failed to moderate DANGEROUS speech on their platforms, speech that can result in innocent people getting hurt or killed. By their choice to not moderate dangerous speech (as opposed to other speech, including hate speech) they made Section 230 irrevelant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. "If you said "Because of Section 230, websites have no incentive to moderate!"

The second "if".

[Blue_true]

96. No, I didn't say the social media companies have no incentive to moderate.

They have had plenty of incentive, they just have not done it for whatever reason they put forward at the time. They simply have failed at their social responsibility to moderate speech that any sane person would see as dangerous to the physical well being of the target(s) of that speech, that failure has to end.

[NutmegYankee]

2. Section 230 protects DU

It protects every website that has third parties (YOU) post comments.

[Blue_true]

17. I post inaccurate stuff on occasion. But I never post purposely malicious stuff.

My feeling is that I would win a lawsuit against me, then counter-sue.

[Demsrule86]

23. People who might object wouldn't sue you...they would go after the sites which have way more

money and then you and other progressives would be silenced. This also prevent Trump from lying on twitter...as his posts could be taken down and were taken down.

[Blue_true]

18. I post inaccurate stuff on occasion. But I never post purposely malicious stuff.

My feeling is that I would win a lawsuit against me, then counter-sue.

[NutmegYankee]

25. No, you can be sued, DU cannot under Section 230.

Now if Section 230 is gone, DU can be drowned in frivolous lawsuits and forced to close down. Large companies like twitter and Facebook have the reserves to survive. Small companies do not.

[Blue_true]

31. Maybe I am old-fashioned, maybe I have seen that in Court, truth

beats lies. If people logging frivolous lawsuits are counter-sued and damages, attorney fees and Court costs are requested and won, they won't be suing again unless solid facts were on their side.

[NutmegYankee]

33. What planet are you from? The American Rule is both sides pay their own fees

There will not be counter-suits that recoup losses. That's why states started passing anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws, but the protections are weak and unlikely to save websites.

[Blue_true]

40. In Florida, a person can file a counterclaim lawsuit if sued and

can demonstrate that the lawsuit against him or her was frivolous. The counterclaim is filed in the same case as the lawsuit, if won (which should happen if a person is on solid ground), the defendant than later sue the person that sued them for damages, attorney fees and Court costs.

[NutmegYankee]

50. And the other 49 states?

Oh right, not like they'd venue shop... It's hard to take you seriously anymore.

[Blue_true]

71. I don't know about the other 48, my guess is they have some version of the Florida

statue.

[onenote]

63. You've stated you're not a lawyer, so that may explain why you don't know how hard it is to win

damages or attorneys fees when you claim that a lawsuit against you is frivolous. The Florida courts have set the bar very high in such lawsuits. For example, if you settle a lawsuit you're barred from claiming that lawsuit was malicious or frivolous. in addition, you have establish that the claim against you was brought for malicious reasons and plainly lacks ANY merit -- factual or legal. Courts are reluctant to close the doors of the courthouse even if it means allowing questionable actions to go forward. Typically, someone has to be a repeat offender before the courts will crack down on them for instituting lawsuits.

[Blue_true]

72. A person like Trump has been a repeat offender.

Generally, people that file malicious lawsuits are repeat offenders, in my experience. If a person feels that they have been wronged by me and that feeling is legitimate, I will try to come to some sort of reasonable accommodation with that person, not so with people that have a history of suing or causing other types of social disruption.

[Demsrule86]

32. You don't understand...sure they could go after you but they want to go after the sites and

if that happens...no progressive message period. We already are outplayed media wise this would destroy any chance of getting our message out...the site would be responsible for what we say and they would sued into serious censorship while conservative sites would be fine.

[Blue_true]

46. Then the sites should moderate knowingly false posts. That is not censorship. nt

[ahoysrcsm]

67. Twitter does, that's why Trump is complaing about their disclaimers.

[Blue_true]

69. Twitter only recently started putting in the disclaimers, under public pressure

over it letting Trump get away with outrageous lies.

The point that I am making is that companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google have not done their job of removing malicious lies from the Internet, if they are forced to censor stuff that is blatantly untrue, then I am ok with that, as long as they don't do the same to true information.

[ahoysrcsm]

86. And yet, Trump is butt hurt and want's to get rid of 230 because thy use disclaimers.

[Blue_true]

87. So now, they simply delete his posts all together for being lies.

Sounds good to me.

[Demsrule86]

79. No, it doesn't work that way...and opinion is often not false or true...but people with deep

pockets cam still sue and bankrupt sites...no matter what you think. It isn't going to happen.

[Blue_true]

83. You are missing my point. An opinion is not the same as a knowing lie.

Republicans and Trump have been spewing out knowing lies for years and social media companies have let them do so. Not we have abominations like QAnon flooding onto social media. I say put a end to that shit, let social media companies censure, force republicans back to the table to craft effective law, right now, with Section 230 in place, they have no reason to do so. McConnell is giving that choice exactly because he knows that Democrats will want to keep Section 230 and maintain the status quo, I really don't see why it should be kept.

[lame54]

42. Courts are not about truth and justice...

They are about deep pockets and who plays the game better
Stay out of them if you can

[Squinch]

3. Repeal of 230 would be like the repeal of the fairness doctrine times a billion.

[Blue_true]

7. I don't see it that way at all.

Anyone who knowingly posts factual information won't have anything to worry about, if they get sued, they simply counter-sue and win both. What will suffer are people that knowingly posts lies and distortions online, in my opinion, that is a good outcome. Maybe if companies like Facebook and Twitter had been forced to be responsible about what they allow to stay up, we would never have had Trump as president.

[hlthe2b]

19. That is most certainly not true. People are sued over all kinds of things and fighting such suits

are extremely costly--even if they are eventually dismissed. Most websites could not defend against such suits. Could you defend against an errant comment or posted photo/video/audio piece you thought was public domain?

[Blue_true]

26. If you counter-sue and ask for damages and Court costs (including Lawyer fees),

people will be hesitant to sue you after you win some of those. If you knowingly post false information online, then you should be fearful, if not, you have nothing to worry about.

[LisaL]

27. I don't think you understand libel and slander laws.

You don't necessarily have to post something "knowingly." You can be sued if you post inaccurate information even if you did so unkowingly.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Clearly he does not. nt

[hlthe2b]

30. I'm sorry, but you are really misinformed.

[Blue_true]

8. I don't see it that way at all.

Anyone who knowingly posts factual information won't have anything to worry about, if they get sued, they simply counter-sue and win both. What will suffer are people that knowingly posts lies and distortions online, in my opinion, that is a good outcome. Maybe if companies like Facebook and Twitter had been forced to be responsible about what they allow to stay up, we would never have had Trump as president.

[Demsrule86]

11. That is bullshit. Just look at the crazy shit the GOP does no...we need 230 and McConnell gets

nothing.

[Blue_true]

20. The GOP does what it does BECAUSE they won't get sued for posting

lies and distortions online as truth. I stick with my basic premise, Truth inoculates a person.

[Demsrule86]

34. 230 allowed twitter to take down Trump's lies without it he could have lied with impunity.

[Blue_true]

41. That isn't correct. Trump lied with impunity on Twitter since 2008.

Public pressure forced Twitter to finally start labeling Trump's lies as such. Section 230 protected Twitter from the consequences of letting Trump lie on it's platform for years.

[Demsrule86]

80. And they still won't. Fox went to court and was given permission to lie...this would be used to

bankrupt Democratic sites. And again, no matter what you think, I doubt it will hapen.

[Demsrule86]

12. What are you a lawyer? Because I don't have the money to defend everything I post...I can't

understand why you can't see what a terrible idea it would be.

[Blue_true]

22. I am not a lawyer and I am not lawsuit happy.

But anyone that sues me on invalid ground must watch out, because I always come for them in the Court of Law and leave things at that. I have yet to see where truth that can be demonstrated as lost.

So, if you get sued, counter sue and ask for damages as well as Court costs. You won't get sued after you take a few people down.

[BarackTheVote]

39. An individual can already be sued.

230 protects the website hosting the post. You’re generally protected as an individual because you’re a small fry, an insignificant voice in an ocean of voices. Facebook and YouTube are huge targets with deep pockets.

Right now, a comment section or social media platform are basically considered public squares; they are forums in which people can voice their opinions, and the people whose opinions they are are solely responsible for what they say. If Facebook, Twitter, Insta, your grandma’s knitting website, were held liable for what users say, then it would be too risky for them to host user-generated content, period. It’s not unlikely they could and would potentially be hit thousands of times a day by lawsuits both meritorious and frivolous, but lawsuits that they’d have to respond to regardless.

It would end the internet as we know it. Hundreds of thousands of people who monetize their user content would be out of work. Comment sections and message boards would disappear. The social media giants would disappear, taking all your pictures, contacts, and posts with them.

Repealing 230 would be bad.

[Blue_true]

45. Then sites should moderate content before posting it.

Such activity is not censorship, imo. Lack of moderation leads to a Trump telling lies and ACTUALLY ENDANGERING the lives of real people for years, and getting away with it because he posted it on a public forum that didn't have the balls to moderate the content, or at least post a notice that it was a lie. People have been threatened with death because of Trump's lies done on Twitter and Facebook, the Magabomber actually tried to kill several such people.

[BarackTheVote]

52. Reviewing every post or tweet or YouTube video before it goes up is

literally impossible. And I do literally mean “literally.”

[BarackTheVote]

56. a PRACTICAL solution to what you're concerned about

isn’t ending the internet as a public forum, it’s rewriting libel laws.

[Demsrule86]

13. Exactly.

[Blue_true]

4. I also don't understand why Democrats would want to defend it either,

if it stands in the way of getting $2,000 to people making less than $75,000 per year. Let McConnell write in opposite the $2,000 and then call his bluff, an up and down vote in both Houses.

Social media companies and message board that allow lies and distortions have been the bane of democrats for more than a decade. If they stand to get sued for allowing lying shit to stay up, then maybe they will put more effort in ensuring that people that use them are not posting knowingly distorted post and calling them facts.

[hlthe2b]

6. The posts upstream from yours explain very well. Repeal would mean the end of sites like DU

who do not have the capacity to fight lawsuits over poster comments.

This was a poison pill strategy to get both Dems and RWers to vote against the 2K.

[Bev54]

54. Wow

Your statements seem naive. You have asked the question and have been provided serious and clarifying answers but don't want to accept them, perhaps a bit more research is in order.

[questionseverything]

5. because we passed a stand alone bill that has the support of the American people

and moscow mitch needs to give it a freaking vote

if ole moscow wants to repeal 230 he can write a stand alone bill and build support for it

as far as election related stuff i hope biden spends a lot of time and effort bringing a minimum transparency requirement to every state but that also can be a stand alone bill

this ole way of taking a great idea that most of us agree on and burying it with a bunch of crap needs to end

[Demsrule86]

9. Section 230 protects all website and all user...the progressive message will disappear without it.

And they want a dog and pony show where they beat up on Biden everyday and destroy him...no. They will make everyone believe without evidence that Biden and Democrat stole the election...no and next it will be shutting down the government everyday for some bullshit demand...no more of this shit.

[Renew Deal]

10. Section 230 has nothing to do with social media. It's about encryption.

Look up the EARN IT act. It’s about putting government back doors into encryption. It’s should be a red line for Democrats and anyone that opposes government oppression of speech.

[Demsrule86]

21. That is untrue...it is part of the decency act and it removed liability from sites for what their

users post...nothing to do with encryption. The fact that Trump and all GOP types want it gone should give you pause.

https://fee.org/articles/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-trump-and-his-allies-want-to-repeal-it/

"Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online. Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That's what I call the shield.”

“But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump's recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down. Section 230 gives the executive branch no leeway to do either.”

It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward. Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values."

[Renew Deal]

57. Sorry, I should say the Section 230 debate.

It's tied to creating encryption back doors. Imagine an Internet where the law required every message sent to be read by government-approved scanning software. Companies that handle such messages wouldn’t be allowed to securely encrypt them, or they’d lose legal protections that allow them to operate.

That’s what the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed and hopes to pass into law. The so-called EARN IT bill, sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), will strip Section 230 protections away from any website that doesn’t follow a list of “best practices,” meaning those sites can be sued into bankruptcy. The “best practices” list will be created by a government commission, headed by Attorney General Barr, who has made it very clear he would like to ban encryption, and guarantee law enforcement “legal access” to any digital message.

The EARN IT bill had its first hearing today, and its supporters’ strategy is clear. Because they didn’t put the word “encryption” in the bill, they’re going to insist it doesn’t affect encryption.

“This bill says nothing about encryption,” co-sponsor Sen. Blumenthal said at today’s hearing. “Have you found a word in this bill about encryption?” he asked one witness.

It’s true that the bill’s authors avoided using that word. But they did propose legislation that enables an all-out assault on encryption. It would create a 19-person commission that’s completely controlled by the Attorney General and law enforcement agencies. And, at the hearing, a Vice-President at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) made it clear [PDF] what he wants the best practices to be. NCMEC believes online services should be made to screen their messages for material that NCMEC considers abusive; use screening technology approved by NCMEC and law enforcement; report what they find in the messages to NCMEC; and be held legally responsible for the content of messages sent by others.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-bill-governments-not-so-secret-plan-scan-every-message-online

[rso]

16. Senate bill

Don’t forget the part that deals with renaming the Bases presently named after Confederate traitors. We can’t let that be reversed.

[Demsrule86]

35. That is in the military bill...nothing to do with the 2000 bill.

They will override that veto...as Nancy has already done.

[greenjar_01]

24. Wow

[SMC22307]

36. Anyone confused about Section 230 should read post #21.

The fact that DONALD FUCKING TRUMP wants it repealed should give everyone pause.

Nothing will shut up the crazies with regard to their election fraud theories, so why waste the money on a ridiculous commission? You think that Kraken loon will believe a "commission"? Lawsuit-losing Lin Wood? Violent right-wing groups? Q nuts who think they can't contract the coronavirus because they don't have the frequency? Sure...

[uponit7771]

61. So true, if Trump said water was wet still check

[Crunchy Frog]

37. As long as it's not used as a partisan weapon, I don't have a problem with an election commission.

The repeal of section 203 is a no go.

I have no idea what the potential ramifications of that would be, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Maybe ultimately it should be repealed, but not without a great deal of deliberation and a large scale national consensus. It should not be done hastily in order to mollify a tantrumming toddler who's trying to hold the country hostage.

If it's something he wants that badly, that just makes me extra wary.

[Demsrule86]

82. Bullshit. This was a fair and honest election and having a commision will make it seem otherwise.

There is noting to investigate period. The GOP will use it to destroy Biden...NO and NO.

[joshcryer]

53. This is silly. Wikipedia has been sued multiple times over user content.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/successes/wikipedia

It's chaos culture. Full stop. They want to foment chaos. Insanity.

Section 230 protects us all.

[moondust]

65. I'll bet Dump hates 230.

I'm guessing it prevents him from using lawsuits to drive his "enemies" out of business, maybe into poverty, and by doing so intimidating others into submission.

[SMC22307]

68. He has a hard-on for Jack Dorsey and is always whining about how "conservative voices"...

are being silenced on Twitter. Fat Nixon does hate 230 and I think you're right about what his ultimate goals are.

[JonLP24]

66. Section 230 also protects DU

[William769]

89. ...