This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Stephen T. Stone weighing in on one of the many comment-section incarnations of the neverending debate about conservative censorship:
Conservatives like Koby have a specific issue with words like “censorship”: They prefer usage over definition, even when the term has an actual definition. Social consequences become “censorship”, even when conservatives haven’t actually been silenced, because they were taught to see anyone trying to deny conservatives a platform they’re not entitled to use (or anyone criticizing conservative speech in even the lightest way) as “censorship”.
For them, “censorship” isn’t the government trying to suppress speech by any means necessary. It’s Gina Carano being fired for likening the Holocaust to people shit-talking Republicans. (And if someone thinks she was fired for “being conservative”, they may want to reconsider that position.)
There has never been any credible evidence suggesting “conservative censorship.” Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from Stephen T. Stone, on the subject of link and snippet taxes for journalism, and specifically in response to the oft-raised defense that the journalism business does have very real problems:
A government forcing Google to subsidize journalism by way of a link tax will not solve that problem.
Next, it’s PaulT offering some translation services for Brendan Carr’s comments about net neutrality and big tech:
What Brendan Carr thinks he said in his tweet:
“we need to look at the big players in the marketplace, and not treat small independent companies the same as major corporations”
What he actually said:
“As the FCC commissioner, I haven’t the first clue of the massive fundamental differences between ISPs and platforms, and should be immediately removed from any position with any power over either of these markets”
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous suggestion about how to turn the tables on cops who play copyrighted music to interfere with people recording them:
Send the clips to the collection agencies, as I am sure they are interested in unlicensed public performances.
What a pleasant start to the week
Normally hearing about an addict going through withdrawals is anything but funny but I gotta say, in this case it’s downright hilarious.
After being given the long overdue boot from two major platforms where he had millions listening to him he’s reduced to scribbling on pieces of paper and hoping that someone around him will post his ramblings online(risking their accounts as well), and adding to the humor is that he could easily use some of the money he conned from his cultists to set up his own site to post on but he’s so obsessed with the audience on the current social media platforms that he apparently refuses to do so(though I suppose it could also be that if he did easily set up such a site it would somewhat ding the ‘tech is silencing me!’ narrative).
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of jokes making reference to TV shows — one I understood, and one I had to look up. First, it’s Nate Piper referencing The Office for an idea about Trump:
No need to even connect Trumps mini-twitter to the internet. Just make a word document and tell him everyone can read his thoughts.
Backlash to Section 230 in a Nutshell
Hatch: “Section 230 poisoned our water, burned our crops, and brought a plague on our houses!”
Other senators: “He did?”
Hatch: “No! But are we going to wait for that to happen?!”
That’s all for this week, folks!