I didn't have you being a little bitch on my bingo card for today.

It's extremely antisemitic to conflate all Jews with Zionists, as Zionism is antisemitic. But...

...most of the Zionists' ancestors weren't even semites, unlike the people they're genociding. Tell me again about how it's 100% about race. You're focused on this incident, I'm talking about the bigger picture, of which this incident is only one piece. Was it anti-semitic? Yes. Is Israel's genocide promoting anti-semitism? Also yes. Does that justify attacking all Jews? No it does not, not any more than being opposed to actions of some Muslims or middle easterners or any other group justifies attacking all of them. But since I never said so, it is you who may fuck all the way off. If I had meant that, I would have said it, because I am not a mealy-mouthed little fuck who can't say what he means. I don't have to make points through weaselly implication because I am not afraid to simply say what I mean, despite the accusations of cowardly clown fucks.

A significant number of Jews insist that their ethnicity and their faith cannot be separated, which is only true to the extent that some of their sects refuse to consider you to be a Jew unless your mother is a certified Jew — another practice which both limits the growth of their faith, and alienates them from everyone else. It's not universal, but it's universally harmful, because the people who do this insist with their fundamentalist fervor that it's the only valid way to be a Jew. So while I would say that for individuals it's entirely possible for those things to be separate, it's not reasonable to expect people to believe that it is.

Every person is an individual, whether it's the shooters in Australia, or their victims, or the Muslim who took the shotgun away from the shooter and got shot twice in the process. Everyone's potentially got their own narrative about every other person, none of which will fully capture who or what they are. All we can do is look honestly at situations, causes, actions, and results, and look for solutions. None of them come from being willfully ignorant as you are demonstrating here, nor from a jerking knee.

Do better.

You're pushing a stupid agenda and seem to expect that everyone reading this is illiterate, which is also stupid.

Section 230 isn't about protecting them for the sake of protecting them, it's about protecting them for the sake of our rights. You might hate feceboot with good reason, but a lot of people have a lot of serious conversations there amidst the stacks of shit.

Every platform has to decide what to show users. Even Bsky has a "Discover" feed which is algorithmically generated.

It is.

They can contact my provider and have my page taken down if the law is being broken. They do not need to contact me. They especially do not need to charge me money. The fee is a large percentage of my yearly hosting cost, so it significantly increases my costs. In protest, I am not paying it, and disabled comments instead so I am not prosecuted for the actions of trolls. This has reduced free speech on the internet. Now multiply that by the number of hobby sites affected.

Do you see the Catholic Court that's replaced the Supreme Court?

It is the fee which amounts to suppression, and you do not understand correctly. You do not get safe harbor protections if you do not register with the feds and pay a fee. Educate yourself before you "try" again.

Why? You've offered absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.

You said section 230 needs tweaking, but you then proposed its complete elimination. Reconcile your statements.

alter: change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way. Yes, adding context or community notes is absolutely, positively, literally, and in every other way an alteration. For the purpose of determining whether there has been alteration, it is irrelevant whether the change occurs at the beginning, in the middle, or the end of the content.

The purpose of Section 230 is to protect free speech for individuals, which will be lost if the operators of platforms can be held accountable for what they say there. That's why the ability of the operators of the platforms to ban or not ban users both is and should be completely irrelevant to whether those platforms receive section 230 protections, and you are therefore demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of the purpose and function of section 230.

Further, your demonstration of ignorance is only magnified by your insistence that social networks differ from ISPs in being able to refuse to do business with specific customers. In fact, ISPs can terminate their relationship with paying customers for a variety of reasons, including not being profitable or even simply being objectionable to do business with.

I'd say it's more, because it's some significant percentage of nonvoters as well.

Completely wrong.

As long as they control the supreme court, yes it absolutely would. You are 100% incorrect in a way that implies not only abject but also willful ignorance.

Section 230 protects people and organizations who run websites which allow the public to post content to them without approval from prosecution, so long as they comply with certain legal requirements like declaring your point of contact for having material which remains unlawful removed, which in turn requires that you pay a yearly fee. (This requirement is not part of section 230, it was instituted later.) This registration and fee is itself a restraint on free speech, but that's not what we're here to talk about and I mention it only in passing. What's relevant is that Section 230 doesn't apply to reporting what the president says at all so no, you are just completely wrong on every level, and everything you said in your comment except your characterization of Trump's speech is utterly false.

In the USA, fact is an absolute defense against libel. Reporting what Trump said is utterly legal, so long as you're reporting it as a quote and not as fact. This is not true in some other nations, e.g. the UK, where even facts can be slanderous if they are expressed with the intent of harming someone's reputation or causing them other damages. Perhaps this is the root of your confusion, you're thinking about some other country where speech is less free?

You have a weird hardon for Putin. You've come to defend him in multiple comments here. Why?

You don't seem to know what the word "merely" means.

That's accurate about Russia by itself, and it's why Putin is trying to build a new Soviet Union in his own image. It's also why they are attacking Ukraine. Ukraine was one of the most important Soviet states, responsible for much of the nuclear program and space program (which is also part of the nuclear weapons program obviously) as well as a very large percentage of their military hardware production capacity.

Most of the things you said in that comment were true, but you clearly didn't understand the import of any of them.

Many Jews literally insist upon this confusion. If you attack the Jewish faith, they insist you are attacking the Jewish people. This is especially true of Zionists, who then go on to insist that they were promised the land they have been illegally colonizing, by YHWH thousands of years ago.

So you mean they don't come from the Levant? Agreed.

What I need is for enemies and traitors to receive the prescribed legal penalties. My statement is well-supported. And traitors are well-supported by the neck until dead.

This is of course false. Obama cut the number of approved permits about in half. While this is a very steep reduction, you are overstating the case by approximately 100%. Meanwhile, Biden issued more permits than did Trump.

You are a liar. Please fuck off with your lies.

It isn't, although that is obviously part of it. It's not about one issue. It's about every issue. As long as we can share unapproved ideas, we can resist. Taking away our ability to do that on the internet would deprive us of the use of the world's greatest-ever communications tool for resistance, or at the very least severely curtail that use by making it inaccessible to the average person.

White is not an ethnicity, it is an entire bundle of ethnicities. However, what all of them have in common is that they have made common cause in at least some periods to promote white supremacy. That's why the "racial" category of "white" exists when there is not one kind of pale-skinned people.

I am not prejudiced against some religions, I am prejudiced against all religions. I'll reconsider that when just a single religion provides some concrete evidence for its magical claims.

Racism was (again) literally invented by white people to justify abuse of brown people including slavery, rape, theft, genocide and so on, and that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race because the differences between ethnic groups on average are less than the differences between members of those groups. Believing in the idea of race and then going on to believe that some races (which, once again, are not real) are genetically superior to others is racism. I am not incapable of prejudice, but I am not racist because I do not believe that race is real.

What I do believe in is shared cultures, and that some of those cultures embody inherently harmful beliefs like racism. Racism is fundamentally baked into white cultures, because they have profited and continue to profit from it whether their members are racist or not. They are constructed on fundamentally racist belief systems. Every time a white culture denies that economic refugees exist and then goes on to deny them asylum from a situation deliberately created by the very same white colonists for profit, racism wins.

There's a coarse but enjoyable saying which goes something like "let's all fuck until we're the same color", it has those attributes in common with sex itself. And that cooperation is exactly what white supremacists abhor. They want to maintain racial purity as if it ever existed outside of inbreeding, which is exactly what they represent.

You seem to harbor deeply seated prejudices in favor of white supremacy and religion, due to the fact that you charged in boldly to defend them with unfounded accusations. Do you consider yourself an incest aficionado?