Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@csstrowbridge That may be how you want it to work, but it's simply not how the law works.

@yasman @mentallyalex See, I'd much prefer to be Meatloaf than Tim Curry.

Oh, wait. I was:

@csstrowbridge Also, Fox News wouldn't have been protected by 230 anyway, because 230 protects against 3rd-party speech only and Dominion sued Fox for 1st-party speech.

@RileyNorman @baldur Yeah, it's not a tool well-suited to bureaucracy, I agree. But for those of us who are independent contractors who can exert full control over our codebases, it's a huge boost to productivity.

@csstrowbridge The only distinction or requirement the law makes is that it covers "interactive computer services". Fox News isn't an interactive computer service, it's a television station.

If you need more proof, here's a lawyer who is a preeminent expert on 1A: https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the

Here's another one: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

And here's Ron Wyden, one of the two *authors of the bill* (quoted in the screenshot below): https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality

And Chris Cox (R):

@csstrowbridge That is a common misconception, but it is incorrect.

See here: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

@mentallyalex @yasman This, yes, money buys infinite distractions, but also because money is power and power corrupts. At some point, it becomes easy to imagine that the people who don't have the same ungodly amounts of money as you are "lazy" and "don't want it enough" which, in turn, means you "deserve" what you have.

@RileyNorman @baldur Agreed. I've been saying from the start that novice programmers shouldn't use it because it reinforces bad habits.

But for those of us with good habits, it learns those habits from us and applies it to our future work. It's really a great tool when used by someone with adequate domain knowledge.

@csstrowbridge It would be nice for them to act in good faith, sure, but they're under no legal obligation to.

@csstrowbridge Lol, that's not how 230 works. It makes no requirements that an interactive computer service be, in any way, a "neutral". It does the opposite.

@gulovsen And also that AI has plenty of legitimate uses. Blockchain is pretty useless except in extremely specific situations.
AI, on the other hand, is extremely useful in about 10-20% of what it's being applied to today (the rest is, admittedly, marketing and idiocy).

Will AI solve everything? Of course not. But it will allow us to build incredibly useful tech that was unthinkable even a couple years ago.

@jann LGBT has been used for decades, and even that is a modification of the earlier LGB.
It's curious that you include the newer variant with the Q when you don't like what it stands for.

But there are dozens of other variations that some people prefer, like "LGBTQ+" "LGBTQIA+" "2SLGBTQ+" "LGBTQQ" "LGBTIH" etc. Trying to include everyone becomes unwieldy, so a generic term becomes preferable.