Section 230 requires all moderation to be in "good faith"
Funny, but I knew you asshat would bring up a point that you just read was wrong. Keep running up against the facts, you won't get the law changed, genius.
Re: Sounds about right, if you're a gang of angry teens...
but unless that man decides to order about a thousand pizzas in
Pelosi's name he's just been left behind when it comes to being juvenile.
Trump is way ahead of you. Of course so as to not be outsmarted by anyone he simply send hamburgers instead of pizzas... and to top it all off, to himself. That'll teach her!
Just to be clear, you all assert the same facts, and you all deny
the same facts.
That's the beauty of facts: they're objectively true for anyone. Except Republican assclowns apparently. Also, just to be clear: you haven't mentioned ONE fact that goes against Mike's conclusion about Nunes being a pompous dick. How come?
We slammed Johnson for his 'what is Aleppo' moment but I've
seen videos where Biden can't finish sentences
Apart from the fact that even a rambling village idiot would do far less harm to the country('s reputation) than another 4 years of covfefe, I really can't be bothered to link to all the videos where the yello Chetoo is too confused to finish sentences (which happens ALL the time).
Instead I'll link to Sam Harris' rendition of the pussy ass bitch President's "thought process". Enjoy!
On the post: German Minister Files Criminal Complaint Against A Journalist Who Said Police Officers Are 'Trash People'
That rambling idiot has chickened out. Better too late than never, I guess.
On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Re: Reform
Funny, but I knew you asshat would bring up a point that you just read was wrong. Keep running up against the facts, you won't get the law changed, genius.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re: Re:
To idiots like you. No surprise there.
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re: Re:
Put up or shut up already.
On the post: Justice Department Releases Its Own Preposterous Recommendations On Updating Section 230
I know they're making shit up all the time but this mangled expression takes the biscuit.
On the post: Justice Department Releases Its Own Preposterous Recommendations On Updating Section 230
Re:
Obviously you assclown cares enough to comment so there's that.
On the post: eBay Execs Thought Sending Dead Pigs, Live Spiders To Small News Website Was A Good Idea
Re: Sounds about right, if you're a gang of angry teens...
Trump is way ahead of you. Of course so as to not be outsmarted by anyone he simply send hamburgers instead of pizzas... and to top it all off, to himself. That'll teach her!
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re: Consistency of Thought
Hoax, my ass. What could be the only reason Republicans would not allow the hearing of witnesses, genius?
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
That's the beauty of facts: they're objectively true for anyone. Except Republican assclowns apparently. Also, just to be clear: you haven't mentioned ONE fact that goes against Mike's conclusion about Nunes being a pompous dick. How come?
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
Why would anyone need heroes?
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re: Re: Re: Just one question
That says a lot more about your opinions than about Techdirt, genius!
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re: Just one question
Said the assclown right winger whose members form nothing but a hive mind of idiocy. Projection much?
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is actively supporting the liar in chief. I hope you're proud for sticking it to the man.
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Re: Re:
Apart from the fact that even a rambling village idiot would do far less harm to the country('s reputation) than another 4 years of covfefe, I really can't be bothered to link to all the videos where the yello Chetoo is too confused to finish sentences (which happens ALL the time).
Instead I'll link to Sam Harris' rendition of the pussy ass bitch President's "thought process". Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBGE80covk#t=4m51s
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Re: Re:
Impressive, chicken.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
STILL with those emails? Weird fixation.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re: Re:
Keep dreaming?
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you just a dumb fuckwit? You sure sound like it.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving our point, genius!
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we care about Joe because?
Next >>