> The whole complaint seems like a thinly veiled attempt to say the federal government is not actually a government. Except with hard power! You can govern wit

> The whole complaint seems like a thinly veiled attempt to say the federal government is not actually a government. Except with hard power! You can govern with hard power, but you can't talk to anyone. It feels to me like a very thinly veiled attempt to sow distrust. To support a pre-constructed narrative that the government is out to get people. Feeling like the victim of government draws in a lot of votes, is one of the lowest common radicalizers available. People are desperate to believe the US government is out there suppressing voices. There's a whole constructed reality that this is prevalent, happening en masse. There's just, like, hardly any evidence at all. Also weird as hell many of these same political factions blame Section 230, when it's expressly a shield allowing companies to host anything online without being in trouble, a defense against The Wolves of Wall Street bad guys Stratton Oakmont suppressing Prodigy. It is inordinately hard for me to read any good faith in the outrage machine powering this all. There's a totally decoupled world of spin feeding this agenda, that seemingly doesn't need any connection to the real world to sustain & grow it's angst. And with remedies like "eliminate section 230" it's terrifying to imagine what all might be wrought by this persecution-delusion.