Punitive Politics.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Now I know politics can be a--play our game or we'll sit you on the bench--kind of environment. It's always been this way to an extent and from both sides of the aisle. However, it seems that the GOP has taken it to the next level to a--if you don't agree with us 100%, say what we want you to say or support who we ask you to support in totality, you are attacked, your reputation, your livelihood and anything else the can use to inflict punishment. The latest being Cruz and cronies going after MLB for pulling the AllStar Game out of GA.

I know I'm biased, but I don't see the left pulling this petty bullshit

If I'm wrong, I welcome the edification.

[Kevin Seitzer]

The GOP is definitely not the Big Tent party any more. I think the Democrats are unsure if they want to be. But the Republicans definitely don't.

[The Feral Slasher]

now i know politics can be a--play

ok !!!

[revo]

GOP: We're the party of Big Business!

Also GOP: We'll target your business if you don't agree with The Big Lie!



"Republican staff on the House Energy and Commerce Committee circulated a memo Thursday morning outlining legislative concepts aimed at reining in some of the power of the largest tech companies in the U.S.

The legislative concepts outlined in the memo largely target content moderation practices and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the controversial law that provides a liability shield for tech platforms for third-party content posted on their sites.

It builds off of the Big Tech Accountability Platform that Rep Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the top Republican on the committee, released earlier this year. Republicans on the committee also pressed the CEOs of Google, Facebook and Twitter on their content moderation practices during a recent committee hearing. "

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548421-house-republicans-circulate-memo-on-legislative-concepts-targeting-big-tech

[chancellor]

Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else.

- Elizabeth Warren

We must give people more control over how their personal information is collected, shared, and sold — and do it in a way that doesn’t lock in massive competitive advantages for the companies that already have a ton of our data.

- Elizabeth Warren

So, Cathy McMorris Rodgers has come around to agree with Elizabeth Warren on tech regulation. Explain to me how that's bad, please?

[Sour Masher]

- Elizabeth Warren

- Elizabeth Warren

So, Cathy McMorris Rodgers has come around to agree with Elizabeth Warren on tech regulation. Explain to me how that's bad, please?

I think the devil is in the details on this. Both sides are coming at this problem with an agenda and each is obviously different. It is a shame our politics don't work to compromise on what we all agree on much any more, or this would be an easy one for bipartisan support. But the GOP's side is motivated by a political agenda that Dems oppose and is including things in the discussion that are non-starters for Dems, like the ability of big tech to curtail misinformation by limiting the reach of certain claims on its platforms, as they were doing toward the end with Trump. The Dems are obviously largely fine with that sort of thing, especially when it benefits them.

I understand the retort of how watches the watchers and how do they determine what is conspiracy theory nonsense that threatens the public good and so must be labeled as spurious, and what is not, and what bias is in play in making those calls and not leaving them up to consumers. And I believe that is the sticking point. Beyond that, there is much Warren and Rodgers could agree on, but will everyone be able to come together to do what they agree must be done? The whole point of this for many on the right is about trying to stop the sort of actions that hurt their chances in 2020, namely big tech's interference with the lies coming out of team Trump. If those things did not occur, I doubt this conversation would even be happening.

[revo]

The great irony of the Section 230 controversy is that if it was rescinded and Twitter, Facebook and the like were responsible for 3rd party information, there's no way Trump or his cronies would ever be allowed to use them!

[chancellor]

I think the devil is in the details on this. Both sides are coming at this problem with an agenda and each is obviously different.

Actually, I disagree. The agenda is the same, and driven by essentially the same POV on two different elections - the Left condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2016 elections, and the Right condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2020 elections. The only difference in the agendas is the Left wants to bend the end result to their benefit and the Right to theirs.

I do agree it's perfect ground for compromise bills that big tech will forcefully oppose.

[Sour Masher]

I do agree it's perfect ground for compromise bills that big tech will forcefully oppose.

And boy, do they have the money and platforms to oppose it!

[revo]

Actually, I disagree. The agenda is the same, and driven by essentially the same POV on two different elections - the Left condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2016 elections, and the Right condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2020 elections. The only difference in the agendas is the Left wants to bend the end result to their benefit and the Right to theirs.

I do agree it's perfect ground for compromise bills that big tech will forcefully oppose.

Well wait - in 2016, these sites allowed fake news to be posted often to influence voters. When alerted, Dems condemned it.

In 2020, the GOP attempted the same -- broadcasting fake news to influence voters. Dems condemned it, but this time the sites did something about it.

Seems like it was similar situations, just different actors, no?

[heyelander]

Well wait - in 2016, these sites allowed fake news to be posted often to influence voters. When alerted, Dems condemned it.

In 2020, the GOP attempted the same -- broadcasting fake news to influence voters. Dems condemned it, but this time the sites did something about it.

Seems like it was similar situations, just different actors, no?

yeah, this is like saying in 2020 Russian hackers complained that the platforms curtailed their ability to spread misinformation and that's just unAmerican.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Actually, I disagree. The agenda is the same, and driven by essentially the same POV on two different elections - the Left condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2016 elections, and the Right condemned the tech companies for supposed malfeasance in the 2020 elections. The only difference in the agendas is the Left wants to bend the end result to their benefit and the Right to theirs.

I do agree it's perfect ground for compromise bills that big tech will forcefully oppose.

However, intent is everything IMO. Warren has always railed against big tech, the GOP has only railed against it when they didn't get their way--thus in a punitive manner. Warren's motives were not punitive.

[chancellor]

Well wait - in 2016, these sites allowed fake news to be posted often to influence voters. When alerted, Dems condemned it.

LOLOL...yeah, I'm sure that condemnation was because their motives were all holy, not because they were looking for strawmen to blame their election loss on.

And while GITH may be right about Warren wanting to go after Big Tech prior to 2016, she was essentially a voice crying in the wilderness on the Left until 2016, where it suddenly became en vogue to do so. Again, I'm sure that was because Senator Warren suddenly convinced all her colleagues on the left that her arguments were correct all the way along, and not because they got their asses handed to them in the 2016 election.

And I'll note for the record that Trump made a lot of noise about reining in/regulation/anti-trust of Big Tech well before his election loss in 2020. Equally, I'm sure those on the Right were finally swayed by the brilliance of his arguments, not because they got their asses handed to them in the presidential election.

I'll also note for the record that Senator Warren has become quieter about breaking up Big Tech now; rather interesting since the Left now has the levers of power to do so.

[Sour Masher]

I'll also note for the record that Senator Warren has become quieter about breaking up Big Tech now; rather interesting since the Left now has the levers of power to do so.

Is "rather interesting" what the kids say when they mean "not at all surprising" these days? It is so hard to keep up with current trends. It is the nature of the break in question, no? It seems to still be a topic on both sides at the moment.

ETA: Yes, I called you a young, hip dude. You are welcome .

[chancellor]

Is "rather interesting" what the kids say when they mean "not at all surprising" these days? It is so hard to keep up with current trends.

ETA: Yes, I called you a young, hip dude. You are welcome .

Many thanks. I could only wish you were right.