this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
313 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

67338 readers
4535 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

from the not-meant-for-this-moment dept

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tfm@europe.pub 100 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Always remember: It's not Democrats vs Republicans. It's the poor vs rich.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

No alt text for our blind brothers and sisters? For shame comrade.

For a long time, I thought the Democrats were fighting valiantly but just overwhelmed by the oligarchy and the Republicans. Then I saw that the Democrats keep losing fights they should win and figured they must be just weak and ineffectual. Then I kept seeing them backing off without putting up a fight at all and decided they were gutless cowards. Finally I noticed that enough of them keep voting with the Republicans to always make sure the Republicans more or less win almost every fight, and that they keep starting from a Center position and bargaining to the Right, and eventually after enough of that it became impossible to ignore the only conclusion that actually fits the facts: The Democrats are not over matched, they aren't weak, they aren't cowards...they're complicit.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

blind brothers and sisters

No gender-neutral language for our non-binary siblings? For shame, comrade.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago

Two party one system

[–] PeteZa@lemm.ee 17 points 2 days ago

The wealthy have unbreakable class solidarity. If only we could be more like them in that aspect.

It's not even that. Rich and poor both depend on section 230 existing. This is politicians being out of touch morons.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 89 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling...

It's only baffling if you cling to the ever-more-laughable belief that the Democrats are any sort of meaningful opposition.

If you instead simply shift to the ever-more-supported belief that they are in fact essentially oligarchic co-conspirators, then the timing makes perfect sense.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yea, both Democrats and Republicans have a pretty solid history of voting in lock step on matters of giving themselves more power.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And they expect to control the White House soon. Why not set yourself up with more power for when you get power?

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The same people who regularly give us uninspiring and insipid candidates to run against demagogues and repeatedly act surprised when they lose ground expect to gain control of a White House where the current president is treating democracy as if it’s an optional hindrance – expect to take power?

If nothing else, I admire their optimism.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Only because he was matched up against the most hilariously inept and unqualified opponent in the history of American politics, and even that wasn't enough to save them twice.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Of course they did, because that's who Democrats are. They are controlled opposition that only talk about opposing Republicans, in the end they legislate exactly like them.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

something something illusion of choice

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's BAFFLING why Democratic Voters are Abandoning the Party. BAFFLING!

[–] PeteZa@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago

Some people actually believe that a group of wealthy people are working to improve the lives of the working class. That’s the baffling part.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This goes out to anyone still thinking there are some good people among the very rich. They‘re all robbers and thieves without a conscience.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

"We need to court the good billionaires."

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Isn't this a death knell for Big Social Media?

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

No, because they can afford the legal fees. It will be worst for smaller sites. From the article:

With Section 230, if a website (or a user!) wants to defend its right to keep content up (or take it down), winning such a case typically costs around $100,000. Without those protections, even if you’d ultimately win on First Amendment grounds, you’re looking at about $2 million in legal fees. For Meta or Google, that’s a rounding error. For a small news site or blog, it’s potentially fatal. And this includes users who simply forward an email or retweet something they saw. Section 230 protects them as well, but without it, they’re at the whims of legal threats.

it's already happening in the UK with the online safety bill

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

True but Big Social would have many orders of magnitude more lawsuits to deal with. I guess it might still not matter.

Well, luckily many large Lemmy instances are outside the US. 😂

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not surprising, considering how spineless they've always been.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Spine has nothing to do with it, they just don't work for us.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

They‘re all robbers and thieves without a conscience.

They all work for the people who give them money to win elections. Republicans work much harder for the rich, that's why they have been winning elections with accomplished felons, pedos and liars who will do their bidding at all costs.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

In this case it's not mere spinelessness, they were pushing for this before Trump to server the interests of their corporate masters (copyright lobby mostly, though big tech would also benefit).

[–] PeteZa@lemm.ee 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes. US democrats are corporate. Not nearly as far to the left as the media would have you believe. I’m not even convinced we have a true left wing.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Certainly not in Congress.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Section 230 is supported by the corporate types too since all the big Internet companies would cease to exist without it. This is brain dead boomers not understanding how the Internet works.

[–] slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Nah, they don't give a shit if it's gone, because they'll just pay an army of lawyers to make it go away.

What this does is makes any competition against any established Internet companies impossible for anyone who can't afford said army of lawyers. That's why they're the main driving force behind it. Any new social media startup will swiftly find themselves buried in litigation over the content people post on their site.

It's far worse than you think.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

I wasn't talking about spinelessness toward Trump (exclusively).

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But all the Dems on Lemmy have assured me that they were always the best hope for fighting Trump and fascism! Surely they wouldn't have all been full of shit!

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

Surely they'd never lie about how their favorite sports them was the good guys! They would never approve of Trump's cabinet picks, give him what he wants, not use the filibuster or abolish it so Republicans get what they want, publicly lie about voting no and then swapping votes last minute to enable Trump's Enabling Acts.

Sure am glad I voted blue no matter who, it's clearly a better choice when the constitution is being bipartisanly ripped, like it was with the Snowden leaks and USA PATRIOT Act.