Proving misinformation and disinformation is easy - we just look for what the #MediaIndustrialComplex narrative is telling us at the moment.

There is no proof other than the approved narrative.

Exposing children to sexualized content is grooming, including exposing them to details of gender dysphoria or sexuality.

Preventing government employees from exposing K-3 children from sexualized content is preventing grooming. That is explicitly written into the law.

Yes, K-3 children will have questions about sexuality...and for a very small and tragic portion of the population, they may also have questions about gender dysphoria. But government employees aren't the right people for answering those questions for those children.

You're correct, the law doesn't use the word "gay" or "child grooming". And if you think it's appropriate for K-3 children to be exposed to sexual content by government employees, I can see how you might not think that it has anything to do with child grooming. But I believe (or maybe I hope) that the vast majority of people don't think children should be exposed to sexual content by government employees.

The righteous people of this world all oppose all misinformation, of course.

Misinformation derailed the election of the President of the United States. It was hailed as "fortifying" an election.

Some will say this misinformation is "fortifying" our energy industry.

Just remember, though "misinformation" only counts when it aligns with the approved #MediaIndustrialComplex narrative.

There's no reason to address gender dysphoria or sexuality in K-3. These are prepubescent children - exposing them to sexualized content as a part of school lessons simply isn't appropriate, especially by government employees.

A primary strategy of pedophile groomers is normalizing sexual conversation and topics with children. Although those on the left will claim that their desire for normalizing sexual conversation for young children comes from compassion, rather than predation, the deleterious effects are the same.

The answer to the kindergarten question, "what does gay mean?" should be "ask your parents." There's nothing oppressive about deferring those questions to parents, rather than activists with a "not-so-secret gay agenda".

Anything that disagrees with the #MediaIndustrialComplex approved narrative is by definition misinformation and disinformation.

Even when the approved narrative changes.

Anyone who says otherwise is pushing misinformation and disinformation.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Georgia

For the people who left CA for free states, they don't need an article to justify their decision - they're living it.

For the people who are still stuck in CA, they need an article like this to justify their decision.

Red, blue, yellow, or green, it's pretty clear who this article is targeted towards, and nobody else cares.

There's more #transregret out there than #excalifornianregret. In fact, I literally don't think I've met a single person in real life that was sad they left the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

Instead they want engagement and eyeballs and apparently allowing otherwise terrible content is good on those metrics.

This is insightful - we live in an #AttentionEconomy, and humans give the most attention to what they fear and hate. Which means simply pursuing profit in the #AttentionEconomy will necessarily lead to the maximization of fear and hatred.

When I quote or repost something from a third party, I'm sharing in that same immunity.

Unless, of course, you're a white man, not a liberal, and quoting someone saying the "n-word" :)

You're either thinking it's a shortcut to get what you really want -- which is no moderation anywhere, anyhow (which turns everything to crap... I remember when Usenet was good) -- or you're thinking that if there is protection from liability, it must only be a thing that exists for common carriers, when in fact that's not true at all.

I think self-moderation is the key. Blocking users, or even subscribing opt-in to blocklists, or block algorithms, seems perfectly reasonable. Imposing moderation, without taking upon the responsibilities of a publisher, doesn't seem like a rational system.

Ultimately, I think the problem here is one akin to how classical physics breaks down at certain scales. Yes, socialism works on a family unit, but at a government level it wreaks havoc. Yes, giving a small blog with 10 viewers the right to arbitrarily block comments without being held liable for comments that weren't blocked seems reasonable, but major social media oligarchies determining the approved narratives for the vast majority of the population without any liability at all also wreaks havoc.

Yes, they should be allowed to refuse. Now, if it just so happened that this one bakery business ran nearly every bakery in the united states, and the primary method of people communicating to each other was through the hand delivery of cakes with messages on them, it would certainly change the calculus there.

Not to mention, sugar should be a controlled substance, anyway.

On the other hand, if a group wanted to use the phone to call people with a political message against the phone company's wishes, the phone company shouldn't be allowed to refuse.

I've always seen 230 as a method of applying the "common carrier" philosophy - phone companies aren't liable for things said on their telephone wires, in return for allowing people the freedom to use those wires. Bakeries, on the other hand, should be held liable for things said on the cakes they produce, in return for the right to curate what they decide to write on those cakes.

Approved to show, much like an employee clicking "show" on an editorial by Obama.

That's an interesting point - let's assume that facebook, youtube, twitter are all just Democrat sites, and that gives them the right to work on behalf of democrat administrations to censor content that would be damaging to that Democrat party.

I think you may be right - this is essentially a specially created a corporation structure that can work on behalf of the government to censor speech they deem unacceptable.

Probably time to start imposing common carrier regulations on large social networks.

So, it sounds like regardless of the (c) title, it could just as easily have been read as "Protection for Super Good People Doing Super Good Things and Everyone Loves Kittens", when by the isolated reading of (c)(1), 230 simply removes any effective liability from publishers online.

I suppose that's a rational read - 230 promised one thing, but delivered something different. I'd love to see that litigated.

And if the litigation did end up de facto giving total exemption from liability from publishers online under 230, I'd support common carrier legislation, so that these social media platforms are treated as phone lines, for example.

So, that sounds like your view 230 is simply a removal of all liability for any online publisher, with no requirement for good faith, or "common carrier" style neutrality.

Definitely needs to be litigated.

Would you hold moderated comments to the same standard? If an employee of NYT approves a comment, does it make them a "publisher"?

Again, it seems that 230, read expansively, effectively eliminates any liability for any publisher online. I'm not sure if that was the congressional intent, but it should be litigated.

Take the employment status out of the equation, like I said - NYT publishes an unpaid guest editorial from Barack Obama online only. Are they therefore free from any liability for libel because of section 230?

Are there really *any* such things as publishers on the internet, given an expansive enough view of 230?