3 ms·

Just more of the unintended consequences we all know will come from this.

by MBCook 4y ago

falcolas 4y ago
Given how the government reps talked (hah) to the TikTok CEO, and some of the speeches leading up to that farce, I’m pretty convinced it’s entirely intentional. It gives power and eyeballs back to the entrenched traditional media moguls.
Spivak 4y ago
There won’t be any. Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. I think it says a lot about any politician that pushes for laws that are meant to be selectively enforced.
- falcolas 4y ago
  It’s not the lawmakers who will be bit, that’s true. It’s any company, and their users who are targeted by an incensed enough Karen. Picture a GitHub.io site that hosts images of nude art.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. It’ll be enforced against whoever individual citizens decide to enforce it against; its a purely private right of action.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Ah, that's the carveout against the 1st amendment. Conservatives have discovered that the constitution only binds the state, so if they delegate enforcement to private lawsuits they can completely bypass protections. Edit: see https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/texas-bounty-hunter-drag-bill/ https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/texas-bounty-hunter-drag... and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunters-citizens/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunte...
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      I don't understand how any court allows this interpretation to exist. If a state deputizes a person to act against the rights of others, that person is acting as the state, and should be bound as the state is bound. Otherwise the state can abrogate all limitations on its powers by deputizing people or companies.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Because it turns out a lot of the higher courts in the US are absolutely captured by people who let their religion and or ideology and or private opinion affect their judicial decrees. This has been the case since even before Dread Scott though so I don't know why we have ever pretended otherwise
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Just like Texas did with abortion. Allow citizens, who I'm sure contain some number who want to enforce their morality on others, to enforce the law. This is fascism. that's it

Just more of the unintended consequences we all know will come from this.

by MBCook 4y ago

Just more of the unintended consequences we all know will come from this.

Given how the government reps talked (hah) to the TikTok CEO, and some of the speeches leading up to that farce, I’m pretty convinced it’s entirely intentional. It gives power and eyeballs back to the entrenched traditional media moguls.

Spivak 4y ago

There won’t be any. Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. I think it says a lot about any politician that pushes for laws that are meant to be selectively enforced.

falcolas 4y ago
It’s not the lawmakers who will be bit, that’s true. It’s any company, and their users who are targeted by an incensed enough Karen. Picture a GitHub.io site that hosts images of nude art.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. It’ll be enforced against whoever individual citizens decide to enforce it against; its a purely private right of action.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Ah, that's the carveout against the 1st amendment. Conservatives have discovered that the constitution only binds the state, so if they delegate enforcement to private lawsuits they can completely bypass protections. Edit: see https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/texas-bounty-hunter-drag-bill/ https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/texas-bounty-hunter-drag... and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunters-citizens/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-law-bounty-hunte...
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I don't understand how any court allows this interpretation to exist. If a state deputizes a person to act against the rights of others, that person is acting as the state, and should be bound as the state is bound. Otherwise the state can abrogate all limitations on its powers by deputizing people or companies.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Because it turns out a lot of the higher courts in the US are absolutely captured by people who let their religion and or ideology and or private opinion affect their judicial decrees. This has been the case since even before Dread Scott though so I don't know why we have ever pretended otherwise
- themitigating 4y ago
  Just like Texas did with abortion. Allow citizens, who I'm sure contain some number who want to enforce their morality on others, to enforce the law. This is fascism. that's it