3 ms·

While Democracy Burns, Democrats Prioritize Demolishing Section 230?

9 points by leotravis10 2y ago

legitster 2y ago
> This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Sounds like a mischaracterization to call it a priority for democrats. It seems like it's a non-partisan issue for a subset of both parties.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  I felt like Masnick's argument was that Democrats ought to have higher priorities right now than this legislative chess.
- krunck 2y ago
  The Democratic party is dead. We need a new left party that is free from the deep structure of the Democrat party.
  - Blackstrat 2y ago
    Why does the United States need a “left” party at all?
    - krapp 2y ago
      ...because there are plenty of people in the United States with "leftist" views and they deserve to be represented?
      - jfengel 2y ago
        They certainly do. The problem is that they're numerous, but nowhere near a majority. They're gonna need allies. The obvious place to go for such allies is the center-left, who share at least some of their opinions. They'll probably block a lot of the things that the left would hope to get, but they'll get something. Even if they literally got nothing, it would be better than going-backwards they get from the "rightists". The rightists have successfully fused with the center-right. And they've done that, remarkably, by putting the far-right in charge. Conventional wisdom would say that the center-right wouldn't go along with extremist policies, but apparently conventional wisdom is wrong. Until recently I'd have said that reverse tactic wouldn't work, but I'm coming to revise that opinion. Not because I think it will work, but because I'm out of ideas. I don't think it's necessary or helpful to create a whole new party for that. There's too much apparatus that needs to be created. It would be better to shift the existing Democratic party far to its left -- not because that's the majority or median view, but because the "leftists" won't align otherwise. That could well be a bitter pill for those who consider themselves center-left, but it's less bitter than continuing to lose.
        krapp 2y ago
        To me it seems like at least as much work to move the Democratic Party to the left as it would be to just create a new party. The creation of an entirely new political apparatus versus replacing an existing system which is designed to prevent exactly that kind of change. We know revolutionary political change is possible in the US, Trumpism is unfortunately evidence of it. That shit started out as a meme and now it's the de facto ideology of the American imperialist establishment. The question is, is this only possible from the right? Does the left need to do to the Democrats what the Trumpists did to the Republicans, and if so, how?
      - Blackstrat 2y ago
        What is the fascination with the left? Collectivism is fundamentally evil. Equating leftism with egalitarian outcomes is naive at best. Cuba, the Soviet Union and others exemplify what happens when leftism triumphs - only the elites are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the democrat party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done.
        krapp 2y ago
        There is no "fascination." Many people have political and cultural views which are commonly considered to be "leftist," as we live in a (supposedly) democratic republic in which people have the right to express their views and have them represented in government. In the common American parlance that term is so broad (because it's mostly used as a pejorative) and the overton window has shifted so far to the right that "leftism" now encompasses most of the ideological and political spectrum. But I could tell by your second sentence that you're neither willing nor able to engage with nuance and have an intelligent conversation on the matter. We wouldn't even be speaking the same language, so I'll leave it be.
        hn_acker 2y ago
        > What is the fascination with the left? Collectivism is fundamentally evil. Equating leftism with egalitarian outcomes is naive at best. Cuba, the Soviet Union and others exemplify what happens when leftism triumphs - only the elites are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the democrat party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done. Let me swap out some of the words to demonstrate how overly generalized your argument is. > What is the fascination with the right? Capitalism is fundamentally evil. Equating rightism with fair outcomes is naive at best. DOGE, Project 2025, and "White House seeks plan for possible Russia sanctions relief" [1] exemplify what happens when rightism triumphs - only the dictators are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the Republican Party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070

9 points by leotravis10 2y ago

> This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Sounds like a mischaracterization to call it a priority for democrats. It seems like it's a non-partisan issue for a subset of both parties.

anigbrowl 2y ago
I felt like Masnick's argument was that Democrats ought to have higher priorities right now than this legislative chess.
krunck 2y ago
The Democratic party is dead. We need a new left party that is free from the deep structure of the Democrat party.
- Blackstrat 2y ago
  Why does the United States need a “left” party at all?
  - krapp 2y ago
    ...because there are plenty of people in the United States with "leftist" views and they deserve to be represented?
    - jfengel 2y ago
      They certainly do. The problem is that they're numerous, but nowhere near a majority. They're gonna need allies. The obvious place to go for such allies is the center-left, who share at least some of their opinions. They'll probably block a lot of the things that the left would hope to get, but they'll get something. Even if they literally got nothing, it would be better than going-backwards they get from the "rightists". The rightists have successfully fused with the center-right. And they've done that, remarkably, by putting the far-right in charge. Conventional wisdom would say that the center-right wouldn't go along with extremist policies, but apparently conventional wisdom is wrong. Until recently I'd have said that reverse tactic wouldn't work, but I'm coming to revise that opinion. Not because I think it will work, but because I'm out of ideas. I don't think it's necessary or helpful to create a whole new party for that. There's too much apparatus that needs to be created. It would be better to shift the existing Democratic party far to its left -- not because that's the majority or median view, but because the "leftists" won't align otherwise. That could well be a bitter pill for those who consider themselves center-left, but it's less bitter than continuing to lose.
      - krapp 2y ago
        To me it seems like at least as much work to move the Democratic Party to the left as it would be to just create a new party. The creation of an entirely new political apparatus versus replacing an existing system which is designed to prevent exactly that kind of change. We know revolutionary political change is possible in the US, Trumpism is unfortunately evidence of it. That shit started out as a meme and now it's the de facto ideology of the American imperialist establishment. The question is, is this only possible from the right? Does the left need to do to the Democrats what the Trumpists did to the Republicans, and if so, how?
    - Blackstrat 2y ago
      What is the fascination with the left? Collectivism is fundamentally evil. Equating leftism with egalitarian outcomes is naive at best. Cuba, the Soviet Union and others exemplify what happens when leftism triumphs - only the elites are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the democrat party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done.
      - krapp 2y ago
        There is no "fascination." Many people have political and cultural views which are commonly considered to be "leftist," as we live in a (supposedly) democratic republic in which people have the right to express their views and have them represented in government. In the common American parlance that term is so broad (because it's mostly used as a pejorative) and the overton window has shifted so far to the right that "leftism" now encompasses most of the ideological and political spectrum. But I could tell by your second sentence that you're neither willing nor able to engage with nuance and have an intelligent conversation on the matter. We wouldn't even be speaking the same language, so I'll leave it be.
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        > What is the fascination with the left? Collectivism is fundamentally evil. Equating leftism with egalitarian outcomes is naive at best. Cuba, the Soviet Union and others exemplify what happens when leftism triumphs - only the elites are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the democrat party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done. Let me swap out some of the words to demonstrate how overly generalized your argument is. > What is the fascination with the right? Capitalism is fundamentally evil. Equating rightism with fair outcomes is naive at best. DOGE, Project 2025, and "White House seeks plan for possible Russia sanctions relief" [1] exemplify what happens when rightism triumphs - only the dictators are well off. The rest suffer equally. If the Republican Party wants to recover, move to the center. Otherwise, they’re done. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43250070