Now how will I order my pizza from pizza.net?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

That's why. Somewhere in some tiny corner of some website with three visitors a month will be something that pisses off someone with lawyers.

Oh, and if Stratton Oakmont rings a bell, it's because Wolf of Wall Street was about them. So the irony is extra delicious because its possible the guy posting on Prodigy was telling the truth.

If S.230 goes away, will slashdot delete this post before a lawyer for whatever's left of Stratton Oakmont finds it and sues them over it?

It's worth remembering that this entire "Repeal 230" business was started as an impulsive tantrum by a petulant man-baby.

That's no way to refer to Joe Biden! https://www.theverge.com/2020/...

The reality is, S.230 is unpopular across the board because it takes away power from those who would use the courts to silence criticism.

whether screening my Facebook and Twitter is in fact limited to the good-faith efforts to address the types of content they are allowed to filter

Thing is, S.230 allows that effectively without limitation:

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

So, say a site run by an antifa-supporting organization does not remove posts by antifa while removing posts from people they consider to be fascists. What exactly would the commerce department claim is being done in bad faith? That antifa supporters don't actually consider antifa posts to be un-objectionable? That they don't actually consider posts by fascists to be objectionable? Is a court going to make a call on how much violence antifa protesters think is "too much"?

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in [sub-]paragraph ([A]) .

(Emphasis mine.)

"people just moderating their discussion boards" is specifically what S.230 allows. Prior to that, you had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Yes if the government tells you "sir, you are not allowed to make a living" they should be making you whole by paying your wages until you may return to work. Unfortunately that's socialism, and was never seriously considered.

You point is well made. I would mention that at the moment Ohio hasn't re-opened day cares across the board and schools are closed. That means that many people can't go to work because there is no one they can get to watch their children. IIRC those people are allowed to remain on unemployment until the day cares are re-opened. I think that's reasonable.

My opinion on the matter is that I do believe we should get free happiness money and if this is the mechanism by which we'll temporarily get it, I'm fine with people using bad-faith arguments in order to get it. EVERYONE uses bad-faith arguments these days, and I don't see why people shouldn't be gettin' while the gettin's good.

Dislaimer: My wife and I work from home and have not drawn unemployment during the crisis. In fact, I don't think either of us have *ever* drawn unemployment. The only time I was ever laid off, I already had a job lined up the following Monday.

To be clear for everyone reading this, the amendment failed by one vote. It's complicated but the amendment needed 60/100 votes to pass due to Senate rules on restricting debate.

I'd look outside first.

Past behavior predicts future conduct.

Which proves that it's actually people that suck.

In fact the Atlanta Falcons we're found to have been doing this.

In fact some of them believe it's a moral issue on the order of slavery.

Any? The fact that you say "he isn't Hitler or Stalin" implies there is some limit.

I take no position on Rand Paul, but reasonable people do hope that certain people would die for having differing political views. For instance members of the German Nazi Party and members of the Soviet Communist Party.

They are considering that in Ohio.