Aaaaand there it is. There's always gotta be someone. I checked back to see if this would happen, and you performed exactly as expected.

You have no idea who I am, where I live, what I do, or what the numbers are like here. All you needed to hear was a slight objection to the mask mandate, and you were triggered. Please take a moment and consider what that says about you.

As long as I am required to wear a mask to go into stores, I am doing everything I can to avoid going into stores. My preferred grocery store charges only $5 to do the shopping for me and then bring the order out to my car. Very little wait at the time of pickup, and tipping isn't even allowed much less expected. I've been doing it every week for a month now, and every week I'm finding fewer reasons to go back to the old way.

Irrelevant. It attracted and held viewers, which means it got ratings, which means it sold advertising, which means it earned revenue for the company. And someone, somewhere chose to give up that revenue without a clearly defined business justification for doing so. (No, "Because the show made blacks look bad!" does not count, and "Because everyone hates cops right now!" is demonstrably untrue.) That opens them to all sorts of uncomfortable questions from both shareholders and employees.

Not just Prince John but also his corrupt officials, like the Bishop and the Tax Collector. The Robin Hood stories were essentially libertarian. I want to scream every time I hear someone smugly spew that "takes from the rich, gives to the poor" line, because it is so politically and historically ignorant.

A proper reading of the Robin Hood stories that he stole from corrupt government officials (e.g., the king, the bishop, the tax collector) and gave back to the people what was theirs in the first place. There was no particular animosity toward "the rich". It was about liberty, not redistribution.

You are not contributing to the discussion; you just restated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

The discussion is about whether Section 230 needs to be reformed or repealed, because it does not have an enforcement mechanism and it did not foresee the rise of social media.

If we include the title of your comment, you are saying:

"I am good, and everything I do is good. You are evil, and everything you do is evil."

Wow, you can't get much more self-righteous than that.

Yes, that's what Section 230 says.

But you still think it's working, after all the news about Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube over the last few years?

It's not working, because there is no enforcement mechanism. That's why people are talking about reforming or repealing it.

Each service provider (hosting, website, phone app, whatever) must decide whether it is a publisher or a platform, under the terms of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). If it is a publisher, it is legally liable for its content and therefore may censor the speech of its users. Conversely, if it is a platform, the federal government grants it protection from legal liability as long as it does not censor the speech of its users. Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are trying to have it both ways. Do you understand that?

Each service provider (hosting, website, phone app, whatever) must decide whether it is a publisher or a platform, under the terms of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). If it is a publisher, it it is legally liable for its content and therefore may censor the speech of its users. Conversely, if it is a platform, the federal government grants it protection from legal liability as long as it does not censor the speech of its users. Social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are trying to have it both ways, and you seem to think that's okay.

"Was /. always this moronic or is it just nostalgic memories clouding my view?"

No, it is significantly worse now, since BeauHD and msmash became the primary editors following the latest change in ownership.

And I went out of my way to sign on for this comment, just so people could see my five-digit ID and understand what I mean when I say I remember what Slashdot used to be like.

It's a product placement, not an actual solution.The NFL is counting it as advertising revenue. Therefore, no one cares what the end users and support staff think about it.

Yo.

Protip: Such arguments would be more persuasive without the gratuitous partisanship.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The political fight over state control of the Detroit municipal government has been going on for years. Try googling the terms "emergency manager" and "consent agreement".