• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Unites States National Debt - How Much And What For

October82

Well-Known Member
Thinking about section 230, It would mainly kill of any rumors threads and the political forums. But the net positive is less misinformation being spread as sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and more can be sued for slander and defamation. OAN reach would diminish and good bye Candance Owens and Ben Shapiro.

A section 230 repeal would either have no effect or increase the spread of misinformation on social media sites. The idea that somehow a repeal of liability protections for content and content moderation would do anything to discourage sharing inflammatory or false information isn't based in an understanding of the law or how misinformation spreads on social media. People like Candance Owens and Ben Shapiro will still enjoy liability protections on their speech, while sites like wdwmagic could face lawsuits for Marni's posts. And while I am not a fan of @The Mom's totalitarian moderation (hopefully clear that's said in jest! :)) I don't think WDWmagic should face legal consequences for it.
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Advertisement
A section 230 repeal would either have no effect or increase the spread of misinformation on social media sites. The idea that somehow a repeal of liability protections for content and content moderation would do anything to discourage sharing inflammatory or false information isn't based in an understanding of the law or how misinformation spreads on social media. People like Candance Owens and Ben Shapiro will still enjoy liability protections on their speech, while sites like wdwmagic could face lawsuits for Marni's posts. And while I am not a fan of @The Mom's totalitarian moderation (hopefully clear that's said in jest! :)) I don't think WDWmagic should face legal consequences for it.

I don't think we really know all of the implications.

Without Section 230, most experts agree it would be hard or startups and new tech firms to enter the online market because they would face high legal costs and liability risks. Large internet companies would evolve and survive but function differently. Greene said companies like YouTube and Facebook would have to pre-screen all content or evaluate, pre-approve and micromanage users.


Repealing Section 230 would not promote greater free speech because social media companies and other internet platforms likely will restrict the content on their sites to avoid liability and the associated overwhelming legal fees.

 

October82

Well-Known Member
I don't think we really know all of the implications.



I would agree that we don't know all of the implications, especially given that the problems with social media aren't directly a consequence of section 230, but we do know these things are not good for free speech while also not substantively addressing how misinformation spreads on social media.

If we actually care about balancing free speech and concerns around misinformation on social networks, we need to address the underlying cause by changing how companies collect, store, and sell advertising data. As long as technology companies benefit from misinformation spreading through greater engagement, we won't be able to solve the problem.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
Unfortunately, one person's "free speech" is another person's "hate speech" or personal insult. We see this here all the time. The only difference is that posters here do not really have unfettered free speech, and they have agreed to be moderated.

Which leads to complaints about unfair moderation - I have been called too far to the Left and also too far to the Right. I would prefer that people just follow the Golden Rule, and not say anything to another poster that you would not want someone saying to your real mother.

If you would not like someone speaking to you in a condescending manner, then don't do it to others.
If you would not like someone calling you names - don't do it to others.
If you want others to see and understand your POV, please extend the same courtesy. Even if you think they are 100% wrong. Express your reasons for disagreeing, but do it in a civil, polite fashion without insulting them.

This I'm right, you're wrong, and you're also ------ insert an insult here ----- for holding that opinion is not going to make our world a better place. And is certainly not going to help any discussion.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
I also forgot to add that the common tactic of giving an explanation for something that is said, or understanding why someone might say or do something, is too often taken as agreement with or excusing something that is said.
I may understand why my toddler had a temper tantrum, but that doesn't mean I accept or condone it. But it could also mean that I just might bear some responsibility, or that something could have been done to avoid it.
 

October82

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, one person's "free speech" is another person's "hate speech" or personal insult. We see this here all the time. The only difference is that posters here do not really have unfettered free speech, and they have agreed to be moderated.

Which leads to complaints about unfair moderation - I have been called too far to the Left and also too far to the Right. I would prefer that people just follow the Golden Rule, and not say anything to another poster that you would not want someone saying to your real mother.

If you would not like someone speaking to you in a condescending manner, then don't do it to others.
If you would not like someone calling you names - don't do it to others.
If you want others to see and understand your POV, please extend the same courtesy. Even if you think they are 100% wrong. Express your reasons for disagreeing, but do it in a civil, polite fashion without insulting them.

I am guessing that this is what will be disputed more commonly if section 230 is repealed. The legal issue becomes to what extent are websites free to write and enforce their Terms of Service.

This I'm right, you're wrong, and you're also ------ insert an insult here ----- for holding that opinion is not going to make our world a better place. And is certainly not going to help any discussion.
😍
 

seabreezept813

Well-Known Member
I think for the electricity it would probably depend on someone’s commute. If you drive to work everyday outside of your immediate area, the fuel and wear and tear savings would far outweigh the electricity. For example, fuel savings for me would be more than $200 per month... plus 1500 miles on the odometer,minimum, saved per month.

For food, I definitely spend less when home. When working I try to pack, but often end up getting at least one meal, and not to mention coffee savings. ;)
Your boy must not be a teen yet. Having my teen stepdaughter and toddler home is what increased the food needed. Plus less going out to eat.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Your boy must not be a teen yet. Having my teen stepdaughter and toddler home is what increased the food needed. Plus less going out to eat.

I mean, no he’s not a teen yet, but he’s a just shy of 5’2 10 year old.

On in-school days, I make breakfast, and pack a snack, and a lunch.

On virtual school days, I make a breakfast, he gets a snack, and has lunch.

Same amount of food, without having to pack (one of the very few perks of distance learning).
 

seabreezept813

Well-Known Member
Aren't you paying to feed them regardless of whether they're at home or at school?
Depends on the family situation. My stepdaughter is only with us weekends during a typical school year because her school is in her mom’s town. With being remote she’s been following her summer schedule, which means 1 week here, 1 week at her mom’s.. so it is an increase in food for us. My 2 year old gets food included at daycare so once again more groceries.
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member

True welfare queens.

Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce.

From Catch-22. Still relevant all these years later
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member

True welfare queens.

Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce.

From Catch-22. Still relevant all these years later

Like the “pandemic relief” checks who are going to people who don’t need the relief. I have a problem with any federal money going to anything where it shouldn’t be going. Figure out a better way for the “some farms” to get the money, and the “some people” to get money.

Exhibit 309,767,501 on why I’m against the government being in charge of anything more than is absolutely necessary.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Like the “pandemic relief” checks who are going to people who don’t need the relief. I have a problem with any federal money going to anything where it shouldn’t be going. Figure out a better way for the “some farms” to get the money, and the “some people” to get money.

Exhibit 309,767,501 on why I’m against the government being in charge of anything more than is absolutely necessary.
Sure you do.
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Love all the people who care about how the government spends money when Trump kept running up the deficit, but now have problem with Universal Pre-K. Just continues to show what kind of people they really are.
Here's the thing, you know who is going to run up the deficiet next? Biden. Point being that each of the parties alternates who runs it up more depending on who is in the WH.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Here's the thing, you know who is going to run up the deficiet next? Biden. Point being that each of the parties alternates who runs it up more depending on who is in the WH.
If they run it up more, will there be more social programs or less than in a republican admin? Also who was the last President to put a dent in the deficit?
 

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Here's the thing, you know who is going to run up the deficiet next? Biden. Point being that each of the parties alternates who runs it up more depending on who is in the WH.

I think my point is that one party campaigns about controlled spending and budgets ;). The Dems are pretty consistent in saying they're going to 'spend, spend, spend'.

If they run it up more, will there be more social programs or less than in a republican admin? Also who was the last President to put a dent in the deficit?

Clinton
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
If they run it up more, will there be more social programs or less than in a republican admin? Also who was the last President to put a dent in the deficit?

Are you aware of the crash that happened shortly after Clinton’s presidency, within a few months, because we had an inflated dot com boom which eventually burst?

Secondly, are you aware that Clinton cut the military by vast proportions, which then ended in increased military spending when we were attacked?

Just saying who was president, without acknowledging what was going on at that time, it’s a bit misleading.

I won’t defend or credit any US president on spending in the past 3 decades. Every one them has done something that I disagree with, some more than others. What I do know, is I’ve never defended spending on Trump’s items listed in your previous post. So it was quite an odd comment to make.
I stand by my statements on spending, on stimulus checks, and everything else. There are times when spending needs to be increased, the key is to do it responsibly. Sending out 2k checks, with little qualifiers, is not responsible. Nor is universal pre k, or college loan forgiveness, or any other such wide social welfare which isn’t needed by all who will receive.

There are a lot of Americans who already receive “free” or “reduced” daycare/pre K, and who already receive reduced or forgiven college loans.
We don’t like to acknowledge that, because then we’d have to admit the truth. ;)
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom