NationStates

The Jamesian Republic wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

When do we bring democracy to Texas?

They already have it.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So what do you suggest the party do about it?

Literally anything would be a good start lol. Don't get me wrong I want to kick Russia's ass as much as the next person but people are still pissed over student debt and all that.

Hmmm I thought you were against corruption?

Kick Russia’s ass? When I understood you wanted to burn the place down; I didn’t think you meant fallout.

It’s not surprising. Student debt immediately affects people. Russia might affect people.

Gravlen wrote:

Forsher wrote:
So, if you were, say, a Texan pride politician running a social media website and had a filter that changed Tex-arse/Texass/Texarse/Tex-ass to Texas you would be liable to be sued?

If the site has a certain amount of daily users - yes.

Hmmm. So does that mean you can’t be DOS’d for posting porn pictures of the governor with various…..well…leave that to imagination. I guess we can post nasty things on Texan sites about Christianity?

It’s a stupid law….seems what Texas likes to do these days. You have to work to get banned. Times it is also for posting and saying things rather abhorrent. I don’t know if you have been here long enough to remember the user Michael Jackson?

Anyway….I used to think SCOTUS would handle things like this….now I am not so sure.

Gravlen wrote:Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

max barry, how does this affect you, and how will texan ns uesrs eventually force nationstates to close up shop?

American Legionaries wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:
When do we bring democracy to Texas?

They already have it.

Hahahahahahha.

Ostroeuropa wrote:We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Damn. I'm surprised Republicans have such a solid lead, especially considering the whole Supreme Court leak thing.

American Legionaries wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:
When do we bring democracy to Texas?

They already have it.

Think harder. Think about what I’m saying.

The Snazzylands wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Damn. I'm surprised Republicans have such a solid lead, especially considering the whole Supreme Court leak thing.

People are motivated to vote when they get what they want.

Gravlen wrote:Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

I guess Californians can breathe easy now that we don't have to worry about any more tech companies moving to Austin lmao

The Snazzylands wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

I guess Californians can breathe easy now that we don't have to worry about any more tech companies moving to Austin lmao

I'll bet this law was supported by the same folks who want to bring more business to Texas.

American Legionaries wrote:

The Snazzylands wrote:Damn. I'm surprised Republicans have such a solid lead, especially considering the whole Supreme Court leak thing.

People are motivated to vote when they get what they want.

It seems like it's mostly the opposite. I mean the last election had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in history, and that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the constant media attention about Trump galvanizing Democrats.
If anything, people getting what they want makes them complacent.

Prima Scriptura wrote:

Forsher wrote:
Revelations. As in Book of Revelation. As in Scripture. As in your username.

It falls apart a little because Revelations as in Book of Revelation is, it seems, an error. But I didn't know that then.

I still don’t get it

"Who are we to stand in the way of Revelations?" Does that not sound like something someone whose name says scripture is pre-eminent might say?

Gravlen wrote:If the site has a certain amount of daily users - yes.

I missed that bit. What's the qualifying threshold?

Forsher wrote:

Prima Scriptura wrote:
I still don’t get it

"Who are we to stand in the way of Revelations?" Does that not sound like something someone whose name says scripture is pre-eminent might say?

Gravlen wrote:If the site has a certain amount of daily users - yes.

I missed that bit. What's the qualifying threshold?

It targets “social media platforms” that have more than 50 million US monthly average users. It says nothing about who should do the counting, or what counts as a user, so bots could concievably count.

The Snazzylands wrote:

American Legionaries wrote:
People are motivated to vote when they get what they want.

It seems like it's mostly the opposite. I mean the last election had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in history, and that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the constant media attention about Trump galvanizing Democrats.
If anything, people getting what they want makes them complacent.

Indeed. Especially when they think they are going to win anyway.

The Snazzylands wrote:

American Legionaries wrote:
People are motivated to vote when they get what they want.

It seems like it's mostly the opposite. I mean the last election had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in history, and that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the constant media attention about Trump galvanizing Democrats.
If anything, people getting what they want makes them complacent.

You misunderstood his point. The GOP is seemingly poised to deliver one of the largest wins ever in the culture war to their base by overturning Roe, it makes sense that their turnout would be high, especially when combined with a Democratic incumbent president. The Dems haven't done anything to drive up turnout and I honestly don't think trying to use abortion as that thing is going to work.

I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Having a bad day?

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Racism and Sexism against white people and men?

The Jamesian Republic wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Racism and Sexism against white people and men?

Wasn't that the spiel of the american right-wingers?`

The Snazzylands wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Damn. I'm surprised Republicans have such a solid lead, especially considering the whole Supreme Court leak thing.

I expected their lead to be larger. No one's enthused with Biden, inflation is driving up everyone's bills, and the abortion issue has become the only real rallying cry the Democrats have. Mid-terms typically don't go well for the party of the incumbent, especially when it's a Dem, as their base never turns out as much for mid-terms as presidential year elections. It may not be 2014 mid-terms grim, but I don't see them doing well.

Hamidiye wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:
Racism and Sexism against white people and men?

Wasn't that the spiel of the american right-wingers?`

Yes. I was just asking where they got this from. It seems self evident.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Snazzylands wrote:It seems like it's mostly the opposite. I mean the last election had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in history, and that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the constant media attention about Trump galvanizing Democrats.
If anything, people getting what they want makes them complacent.

You misunderstood his point. The GOP is seemingly poised to deliver one of the largest wins ever in the culture war to their base by overturning Roe, it makes sense that their turnout would be high, especially when combined with a Democratic incumbent president. The Dems haven't done anything to drive up turnout and I honestly don't think trying to use abortion as that thing is going to work.

Oh. How is a culture victory? It’s was more about placing party zealots in SCOTUS then the people changing their views. It will be an interesting vote. It will be where we see the true nature of Alito, Gorsuch, Kav and even the CJ with all their comments about established law and stare decisis. At least Barrett dodged the questions rather then lie about them.

Still I get the feeling it’s going down and we will be pastured with MAGA messages and the SCOTUS is actually neutral and did us a favor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 723147002/

White House press secretary Jen Psaki bids a teary goodbye to reporters in her final briefing

her successor Karine Jean-Pierre will be the first Black woman and openly LGBTQ person to hold the position.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Having a bad day?

A pretty good day thanks. Yourself?

The Jamesian Republic wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd also note that the left have pissed away social and political capital, enormous amounts of it, trying to normalize and justify brazen racism and sexism against whites and males, as such the likelihood they will be able to convincingly galvanize the population on the Roe issue is basically nil given that their attempts to do so will revolve around insisting "This is sexist against women" which will get most people to just smirk and shake their head about it and be like "You've got a lot of fucking nerve haven't you?". Meanwhile the Republicans are spamming "Dead babies bad" which while tiresome isn't actively and gratingly hypocritical in quite the same way.

The pro-life folks will be extremely galvanized. Pro-choice folks? Some of them, sure. The ones who would vote anyway.

Racism and Sexism against white people and men?

Yup.

Hamidiye wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:
Racism and Sexism against white people and men?

Wasn't that the spiel of the american right-wingers?`

Not just the right wing. Most of the center and a portion of the left too. Hence the exorbitant amount of social and political capital this has cost the left wing.