I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation’s in… We kept it grey!"

Bureaucratic babbel at it’s finest.

I understand. I’m ND so it’s hard for me to pickup social cues as it is, text makes it especially hard to figure out emotion or intention at times.

Thank you again for helping me understand a little better. 😁

This is why I asked if anyone could clarify for me. Thank you for explaining in a more natural manor, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me.

With your clarification, it definitely seems to me like the protections in place should stay there. Maybe there are issues with some of these companies, but I don’t think removing these particular protections will change the issues I see, just stifle open speech.

This is exactly why I asked if anyone could clarify for me, I didn’t understand what was really being put on the political table here. Thank you for elucidating, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me. I understand that’s often done purposely by the people submitting such legislation, so I usually have to find someone who can understand it better then I can.

Answering my own question, it seems that “Sunset acts” are a common occurrence in legislation that end programs and activities that have more or less run their course or stopped being effective or meaningful.

The reason this Sunset Act is being mentioned is…

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was created to protect early internet platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content, a safeguard widely seen as essential to the internet’s development. As social media companies have become some of the nation’s most powerful and influential corporations, critics have questioned whether that protection should remain.

… so my understanding is that this Sunset will remove some outdated protections from social media platforms, effectively forcing them to adapt with better policies and practices or open themselves up to litigation.

Since the text of this bill almost exclusively “strikes” sections of other, preexisting legislation, I can’t quite tell what it really does without trying to locate and read each of the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone have a quick summery of what effect this proposal would have if passed?

The issue some of us take with that is no, we did not all decide we needed more racism and hate. In fact, more and more evidence is being found that shows the entire thing was rigged, and the true majority decision was not acknowledged by the folks who had mostly been behind the scenes before.

Your right, I double checked the number and I misremembered, it should be ⅗ not ⅕.

Yeah, not surprised at the Orange Blunder finding a way to bring back slavery. Oh his cronies will think up a different name for it, but soon these poor people will be segregated and counted as ⅗ of a person for purposes of population counting when drawing up political districts.

At this rate we are going to end up with Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo before Christmas…

Edit: Correction of fractions, the historical amount was ⅗, not ⅕.

Of course he is, and just like Palpatine, he will attempt to create laws and organizations that benefit himself. Especially if he feels he can twist the existing ones to suit this purpose.

I’m not deluded or ignorant, I’m well aware such a thing wouldn’t stop the dictatorial asshat. I’m only pointing out that from a legal perspective, this wouldn’t be an “official and legal” order. Such a thing can already be said of many of the Executive Orders that have been proclaimed and signed. It’s a technicality, I know, but I’m just trying to point out another instance of the law being twisted and ignored rather then upheld.

Official = legal in this context, so if he where to try and declare war without Congress approving, it would not be an official act.

Gooooood Morning Night City!

Removed by mod

Protesting is not treason. Treason is the reason for the protests.

I have Finch set to auto-update, so I’m not sure if it gives you separate notifications for that.

Finch is pretty close. Free as well. It’s intended to help with self care and mental wellness, could be a good fit for you.

The problem arises when the person giving those orders authority hears “By order of the king” instead of “by directive of the president”.

The US doesn’t want a king, it was a big deal here about 250 years ago. Looking like it’s gonna be a big reminder for the 250 anniversary.

NO. KINGS.

Why else would the orange be challenging the constitution? His current play of changing birthright citizenship is a practice range so he knows how to aim at his real targets.