Had two different co-workers get shingles. Sores on the bottom of their feet, on their palms, on their eyelids, and inside the mouth.

I said I’m getting the vax. No matter how bad the side effects are they last a few days. Take a weekend.

Compared to my co-workers who were in misery for weeks.

"I don't see what's so hard, I just want all the bad content removed and only the good content promoted"

Right-wing affirmative action in media has become so de rigeur that Republicans are unable to perceive that quotas are the only reason anyone hears their childish drivel on television.

But do your lips really touch for W?

Mentally debating if saying “Double U” isn’t just giving the B a second round in this quiz. If you say the SOUND the letters make, I only count 3 letters. Over-analysis as usual….

So Miller has been trying to use VZ as an excuse for years.

I agree with @asharangappa.bsky.social that he's using war to reverse engineer domestic repression.

bsky.app/profile/asha...

Someone else posted this might be a proxy fight with Cuba: cut Venezuela oil exports to Cuba to force changes there.

These are the "good and decent people" who didn't survive the Reagan presidency.

The hostage deal to get elected guy? That asshole?

The guy who accused so many of being communists so they lost their jobs?

That fucking asshole?

The guy who did Iran Contra?

He was a monster.

praising Regan when you need the support of the generations he financially fucked over is certainly a campaign move lmao

And defamation can be long and drawn out as we see with deep pockets defendants like Devin Nunes versus Devin’s Cow. How does a site holder vet for defamation? That is also 1A prior restraint - you are free to say it, but not free from the consequences of saying it. Why should the site pay for it?

Searching back, you say one goal is putting defamation onto the site owner (your very first premise). That’s a 1A case that sucks the site owner with big pockets into EVERY STINKIN’ case. Even if it is removed with SLAPP, it still gets a court docket and must be defended at a cost of time any money.

What moderation are you trying to explain that we haven’t seen before? Generalities are NOT acceptable, and if you can’t give any details we are just going to have to disagree with you as people who work and study this industry and have seen it all, and seen badly proposed laws cause more trouble.

Your goal is moderation. That’s clear 1A prior restraint and has additional legal burden if you try something like “community standard” (see book banning for example of litigation).
Age verification is also 1A but… we are kinda doing it in some states. Also easily defeated and hard to scale.

See the entire West Texas Intellectual Property and Patents stuff from the early 2000s (and CA5 now) for extreme examples of judges legislating.
Any kind of law ambiguity forces site owners to spend money in court. That’s what we want to avoid.
Exactly what happened in patent law before Alice case.

We explained how it worked before S230 (Prodigy and Compuserv lawsuits), and how S230 removes the site owner from liability for user content. Do you want to make the owner liable for content or not? If no, explain what additional legal responsibility are you trying to add to site owners?

It’s not the judiciary that is the problem. Look at the suits by Trump, Musk, RNC, or people with money. Forcing site owners to defend them or lose and pay.
What proposal do you have to separate site owners from users for liability? Before S230, we had lawsuits (see Prodigy or Compuserv cases).

Without S230, ANY moderation of user generated context puts the site owner in liability. Take a recipe exchange site, photo posting, etc. there’s no legal way to define “social media” separate from those sites. Any definition will be endlessly litigated costing the site owner legal fees to defend.

And anyone who has followed moderation since the 90s and was around for the Compuserv and Prodigy lawsuits will also know.
The reason big tech wants moderation is because they already spent the vast money needed to get “close”. Requiring newcomers to invest cuts out new competition.

And if you disagree with me on technological solutions, you’re woefully under informed on how this works. As explained prior, there’s no “tech harder” for moderation just like there’s no safe backdoor for encryption. S230 makes you go after the end user who posted the comment, not the website.