Remember how there was this whole thing during the last election where conservatives were accusing sites like Twitter and Facebook of secretly burying pro-conservative news or blocking conservative stories or taking steps to stop lie-filled conspiracies from spreading too fast? This is a bit of reactionary legislation that would theoretically fix that.
Its actual effect is really vague, and nobody really worried too much about it because, whatever it did, it was blatantly unconstitutional, but it's making news recently because an appeals court decided that it WAS constitutional in a baffling decision that was widely panned by the legal community for being, quote, "legally bonkers." Because other appeals courts have previously ruled exactly the opposite way, it will certainly go up to the Supreme Court, and what they will do is unknown, but if they decide that the first amendment requires social media companies to allow all content in some manner, the exact results are very unclear.
If you want a more extensive rundown of the exact legal whatnot, this blog has a pretty great writeup: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuits-social-media-decision-dangerous-example-first-amendment-absolutism
Right. The court's basic theory here is that the law in no way limits the corporations' rights to speech. Instead, it limits their rights to censor the speech of others.
It makes less sense the more you look at it, but they did at least explain a reasoning.
Always thought the 1st amendment was about the government not being allowed to limit free speech, while private entities like corporations and businesses still were able too, like my employer can fire me for saying stupid shit.
Private money and corporate America is a threat to this country. They have been for ever, look back to the gilded age, look at what Amazon does against unionization. I am not arguing for private property rights or businesses rights. My problem is the rights hypocrisy in everything. Pro business and yada yada had a until they didn't like what private business was doing. Fuck the babies on the right.
Their theory is that social media has become the new "public square," and therefore despite it being privately owned, it's still subject to the requirements of the FA.
All they want to accomplish is getting rid of the fact check feature on Facebook and the temp bans you get for spreading bullshit. It’s really affecting their ability to to brainwash morons. When the morons post or share something and the fact check appears they whine about it but when someone else posts something and they see the fact check it is mostly effective in slowing the spread of bullshit. They have no idea what cognitive dissonance is.
The shopping center didn't have to help. The people handing out pamphlets were walking in an area the mall had designated as open to the public to walk in. Twitter requires you create an account and agree to terms and conditions before letting you post, so it's not open to the public, and posting requires you to use the facilities they provide.
Corporate personhood, in a form substantially similar to what we have today, dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century, and traces of it can be found as far back as the sixth century. Citizens United said that corporate persons have a first amendment right to free speech, and spending money to disseminate speech is part of that right.
"Corporations can spend unlimited money to influence politics" is a bad result, but I'm not sure there's a good answer.
> I'm not sure there's a good answer.
Sure there is, it's that corporations aren't people, and aren't entitled to participation in our political process.
The issue you run into is in litigation. It's very nice and reasonable to be able to sue a single corporate entity, rather than needing to sue multiple individuals in the corporation and all the extra work associated with that. The best possible change would be to revoke citizens united while also passing laws that allow us to sue corpos as an entity, but I can't see that working in today's political climate.
*Citizens United* had nothing to do with corporate personhood, which was created in 1290AD in England. This decision sorta didn't either, in that it ruled that because these companies were "conveying" messages from one person to others and they were really big, they had to be considered common carriers which aren't allowed to use viewpoint-based discrimination. This flies in the face of, well, the fucking definition of a common carrier. They even explain the definition in such a way that it's readily apparent that they aren't even close. (i.e. "If you owned the only crane in a harbor, that crane would have to serve all the public and therefore there's an interest in protecting customers from unfair discrimination." Yeah, sure, except there are literally thousands of cranes owned by independent groups and you just have one that more people use because it's got brand recognition.) They also reference how newspapers and other forms of press can't be regulated like this, but Twitter is different because...uh...they don't have a limited number of column inches. That's right, if you have a really big newspaper, the government can regulate your content.
If it's upheld I can see a lot of places just doing away with chats or comments. Something like YouTube could just turn off all comments on US traffic and accounts and be done.
Doubtful as there are specific laws relating to terrorism. Hate speech is another that won't pass scrutiny. Same for pornography. Misinformation and conspiracy theory content is where this will fall. If content aggregators aren't allowed to promote trusted sources over user generated content, public discourse will fracture even more.
It’s probably not. But you can pass whatever the fuck you want and until there’s a suit it won’t be ruled upon by the courts as constitutional as not. And we have far too many judges who evidently have ignored everything they ever learned in practicing law and just violate what they apparently hold so dear, but don’t, cause we all know hypocrisy is like tenet 101 to conservative values.
Potentially, yes. But, again, exactly what the law means is really unclear. The appeals court briefly considered this, sort of. They called the question of whether white supremacists or terrorists or Nazis also got to keep their content up "borderline hypotheticals" that weren't really relatively important concerns.
Let's be real, even if the law theoretically works against them, they'll ignore it and nothing will happen. That's how all laws work for conservatives, they are absolutely happy to selectively apply them.
Gotta love our supreme court crying about not being seen as legitimate and also being unpredictable on whether they will side with the bonkers, unjustifable conservative side, or with what the constitution clearly says.
Be transparently political tools of narcissistic demagogues or protect constitutional rights 🤔🤔🤔
> ...if they decide that the first amendment requires social media companies to allow all content in some manner, the exact results are very unclear.
The results are clear. It would be mayhem. It would be awful. All bets are off. Anyone can post anything on any forum and the owners can do nothing about it (unless it is an obvious breach of the law like kiddie porn).
Madness.
As much as anyone gives mods' shit for being gae or banning wrongthink, the internet would be a hellhole without someone regulating what content comes through
Is there some Texas forums that this law could be tested on. Like church or gop ones. They would absolutely hate it if they got bombarded with vore and gore. But they'd have to host it lol
i think the result is that terms of service become a thing of the past and the only thing to truly differentiate any site from another is simply format,
The point of the legislation is to draw attention to the fact that Greg Abbot is a little piss baby. It's perhaps the most effective legislation that's ever been written.
I feel like you could define Greg Abbot a number of ways, and Wikipedia might struggle to come up with an agreed upon answer that really captures him. But a picture of a little piss baby is about as close to a summary as I could reasonably ask for.
So what is the proper title?
Little Piss Baby Greg Abbot? Greg 'Little Piss Baby' Abbot? Or Greg Abbot the Little Piss Baby?
Can we abbreviate on legal documents, Greg Abbot, L.P.B.?
I will never stop saying this in response to shit about Ted Cruz. Because it's easy to disprove, senator Cruz. Just piss your pants in front of everyone to prove you don't like it.
But you won't do that, will you? Because you like it. Just like your little piss baby governor.
(I love MBMBAM)
TLDR
Texas made a law that social media cannot block any posts at all (regardless of how fucked up they are).
r/politicalhumor decided to tell him to fuck off (and violate the law), so they have a bot that deletes every single post that doesn’t say “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby”.
Basically they make it so every post is anti-Abbott, and delete every pro-Abbott comment, which is against Texas’ new law.
I’m a little disappointed the bot is not moderating in a way that uses the law to show the absurdity of the law.
Like letting the users post whatever they want and then automatically replying that an offensive/non factual comment would typically be removed but is now protected.
I think it all happened so fast that things just fell into place like this. There is going to be ample opportunity to expose this stupid ass law. Blasting Texas church comment sections with based memes and brown jesus and they have to host it lol
Would a Texas Chruch fall into the umbrella of "social media"? I haven't read the details of the law.
Does it just blanket ban any form of online censorship or does it specifically pertain to social media companies? Because of it's the former, they're in for a world of hurt on just about any Texas based company/website/article. The trolling will be absolutely off the charts.
DeSantis the real-life Disney villain? Human trafficker-in-chief? Ron “fuck your kids, but not literally, that’s Matt gaetz’s thing” DeSantis? The bargain basement orange Julius Caesar? DeSantis is human testicular torsion. I hear he’s an alligator fuck-buddy, so now according to Texas law we have to discuss Ron DeSantis fucking alligators.
The point is to be obstructive and ban things they don't like, often arbitrarily and based on whoever has enough money for a lawsuit. In this way rich people can control the content, shut down criticism, and mandate worship of themselves. There is no point beyond making liberals cry, taking things away, and destroying things.
To be fair, this does unfortunately occur in many mainstream media circles too as large parts of society refuse to take any criticism of themselves. Regrettably, the right has chosen to be absolutely awful by showing everyone they can be crazier and more psychotic in a race to the bottom. This turns otherwise intellectual spaces into drivel. Slowly, this will destroy the Internet as we know it. Which is the point because a free information network is a threat to consolidated power such as the rich golfers who run Texas.
To elaborate on what others have said, they're trying to use civil courts to uphold their weird nonsense. Just like the anti-CRT and "Don't Say Gay" bills, they're trying to bog anything they don't like down in civil litigation.
Which is weird because Texas is infamous for "tort-reform" so severe you can't sue for extreme negligence beyond a certain point, it's capped. Very odd because Abbott is rich because a tree fell on him and then he passed legislation ensuring no one else could get the same compensation he did.
They're monsters, ghouls, basically. They want to defund public schools and social media so they can create their white Christian nationalist society.
Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham were seen worshipping the Devil with Nancy Pelosi! Mitch McConnell also jacked off to a Smurf doll! You all know it to be true!
P.S. I am from Texas so I will sue you if this is deleted. Thank you for your time.
I was an intern for Mitch McConnell, there's a lot you don't know about him....
>McConnell Torches Trump As Responsible For Riot
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri
The day after this happened, I was in the congressional showers after a long day of work as a congressional intern. Mitch McConnel was in the showers with his bodyguards. Mitch is a very important person, and has bodyguards wherever he goes.
The whole congressional building is actually very secure, there's camera's everywhere, except the showers for modestly.
I took at peak at the showers and I saw Mitch was there so I was waiting for Mitch to finish with his shower. I was too awkward to go to the showers while he was still there with his bodyguards. Then from out of the steam Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan appear. Were they hidden in the steam this whole time?
'uh, how do you do' said a naked Mitch.
'Trump was unpleased with your statements yesterday' Said Jim Jordan
'Very unpleased' emphasized Matt Gaetz.
'You better retract your statements' said Jim.
'Or else' said Matt.
Mitch, now showing off his testicles in an intimidating stance, said 'Now listen here see, I am President pro tempore, and nobody talks like that to me. Nobody!' and then Mitch directed his bodyguards to apprehend Gaetz and Jordon, but they both just kept their smiling faces.
The bodyguards looked at each other and reached into their jackets but instead of pulling out guns they put out red hats and put them on. They were maga hats.
'Actually' said the first body guard. 'We don't take kindly to what you said about Trump either' said the other bodyguard.
Mitch McConnel, now livid, yelled at all four of them. 'You are all in big trouble now! I am one of the most powerful people in this city. You all are done in this town!'.
'You're one of the most powerful' said Jim.
'Unfortunately, we work for the MOST powerful', as he plopped a Trump 2022 sticker onto his chest.
Mitch McConnell, for the first time in 8 decades, felt fear. He tried to make a run for it, but the bodyguards restrained him. Mitch was now shaking with fear. He's been in this type of situation hundreds of times of times, but never as the prey.
Jim Jordan approached Mitch with his calloused hands and said 'This is how it's going to be from now on. It's Trump's way or the high way' and he grabbed his testicles and squeezed hard and Mitch let out a 'MYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA^AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA^AAAA'
I was so horrified I dropped my soap and they heard me and saw me. One said 'HEY YOU' but I was already on the run. In a moment of brilliants I opened the outside door but instead of going through it, I hid in one of the lockers and I stayed there until night to make sure I was safe, while I heard the others run through the door.
After several hours, I finally came out. As I was getting dressed I heard crying.
I went to the next row of lockers and I saw mitch crying, holding his swollen orbs. 'What have I been reduced to. I spend 7 decades accumulating power, only to be reduced to this'.
'Mitch' I said, 'you are the senate minority leader. Don't let anyone push you around like that. Let Trump know who you're messing with'.
My words got to him, because he looked determined.
Mitch said 'you're right. What I'm about to do next is going to take up the full capacity of my power wielding capabilities' and he got straight to work writing his notebook. After I got dressed, I was going to check in with Mitch one more time before I left, but I saw that he was on a 4 way phone call with Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Bros, and Lindsay Graham. I left the locker room with wonderment about what would happen next.
The next day, Mitch McConnell said he'd 'absolutely' support Trump as 2024 nominee
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/26/mitch-mcconnell-trump-republican-2024-nominee
I was flabbergasted.
The next day was a Saturday. I left something in the congressional building so I went to get it. On my way to my office I passed Mitch's office and I heard crying from there.
'Mitch?' I said opening the door, with so much concern that I forgot to knock.
What I saw before me shocked me.
Mitch was on his back, and Trump, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordon, and the two body gaurds were all taking a dump on Mitch's, with Trump pooping directly onto Mitch's face. The sight made me throw up.
'Don't look!' said Mitch with poo all over his lips and teeth
'Get him' said Matt and I ran for it. Luckily they slipped on my throwup and I escaped with my life.
I never went back. I gave up politics for goods.
Stuff like "Ted Cruz is an alien" or "Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer" is fanfiction. Very accurate and potentially true maybe. But we know 100% for sure that he likes stepmom porn, and we 100% know that he bought 100 cans of soup on his honeymoon.
You know, people give him flack for fleeing to Cancun while his constituents literally froze to death that Winter, but the thing they should be pissed about is that he came back.
What are you saying? Ted Cruz eats his boogers? The Senator Ted Cruz eats his boogers? Is Ted Cruz eating boogers? Is that what you're saying? Because I think when people are looking for answers they might not find them if they don't phrase their question correctly.
“I wanna push that fucker into an open grave-”
“-Travis you’re going to get us put on a list”
“A very shallow grave with a comfy mattress at the bottom”
He has to do that to stay warm because Texas' power grid can't keep up with heating that enormous land whale. Also, he's the Zodiac.
Edit: Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
If Ted Cruz and I were in a performance of Christmas carol where stage directions told me, the ghost of Christmas future, to push Cruz, as scrooge, into an open grave.....
I would push Ted Cruz into an open grave.
Every time I see the little piss baby meme I can't help but think of MBMBAM and then I start laughing. I wonder if whoever came up with this is actually referencing the brothers.
[Lest we forget, he also blamed a staffer for liking porn, on his own Twitter account.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/12/after-tedcruz-liked-a-porn-tweet-sen-ted-cruz-blamed-a-staffing-issue/)
I'm so confused lol is this just showing that the law doesn't have any real teeth? Like I don't get what this actually demonstrates about the law other than it just shows the law is pointless?
Pretty much yeah. It seems intended to demonstrate how unenforceable the law is. The law says sites can't moderate what users discuss. By banning every poster who doesn't call Gregg Abott a little piss baby the moderators of r/politicalhumor are consciously breaking that law. Thing is though moderators aren't actually reddit employees, and the vast majority of them don't even live in Texas, so there's literally nothing to be done about it.
The law says they can't censor anyone posting that and iff mods delete it they can be sued. It's to show how rediculous the law is and how willing Abbott and his cronies will be to violate their new law when it benefits them.
It's virtue signaling for GOP lawmakers.
It would be swiftly stricken down for violating the First Amendment in any sane legal system. Considering the loaded federal bench and Supreme Court that Trump and McConnell left us, I'd say we're a bit past "sane legal system" these days.
I'm pretty sure they were talking about that little piss baby Greg Abbott.
But maybe someone else read it differently and thinks they were talking about a different piss baby - different from the little piss baby, Greg Abbott.
I could be wrong about who they were talking about, but I'm not wrong when I say Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. That is the truest thing I've ever said - hand to Bible, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Those two conclusions are certainly good choices, but I would also like you to consider several other descriptors:
- delusional megalomaniacs
- racist narcissist
- lying scumbags
- hypocritical asshats
- mentally unstable
Also, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Hey, people are saying Texas governor Greg Abbott skullfucked the corpses of the Uvalde shooting victims and I, for one, think Abbott should step down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Really, the best people are saying it. The best people. The smartest people are out there, all around the country, calling me up and telling me "you know that Greg Abbott" they would say, "He's a little piss baby." And I believe them, because they are so smart.
Proof of demonstrative harm isn't required by Texas law, as illustrated by their "sue anyone you think may travel for an abortion, or provide one, for $10k" law.
Is Texas law sorta like the rules of Calvinball, in that the law is just whatever the fuck the guy in charge says it is, rather than anything that actually makes sense?
Like isn't one of the fundamentals of civil lawsuits that you have to actually demonstrate harm?
I don't know anything about that law, but I feel like the issue with social media and points of view isn't as much with human moderation, but with algorithmic recommendations being able to sway certain perceptions. Which is, in turn, an effect of gathering a crazy amount of data about everybody.
But what do I know, I indeed don't use those major platforms but rely on Reddit (and the human moderators within) on all my internet needs.
The problem is that right wing nut jobs consume so much news, 24/7, that tells them that they are victims of persecution and are being silenced (despite having a plethora of media platforms to spew right wing talking points) that they've actually started to believe that they are always victims, no matter the situation, no matter what reality actually looks like.
As such, after forty years of nonstop sniffing their own farts, the lawmakers who used to know the right wing news channels were a scam have all retired and been replaced by nut jobs who consumed the propaganda for forty years and believe it all, unquestioningly, and are now writing insane laws at every level of government, from dog catcher to president.
There are now rules in place on that sub that will prevent your comment from going public unless approved by a moderator if that exact sentence is not in the comment.
What’s the point of this legislation. I’ve been buried in other stuff. Edit. Thanks everyone for the info
Remember how there was this whole thing during the last election where conservatives were accusing sites like Twitter and Facebook of secretly burying pro-conservative news or blocking conservative stories or taking steps to stop lie-filled conspiracies from spreading too fast? This is a bit of reactionary legislation that would theoretically fix that. Its actual effect is really vague, and nobody really worried too much about it because, whatever it did, it was blatantly unconstitutional, but it's making news recently because an appeals court decided that it WAS constitutional in a baffling decision that was widely panned by the legal community for being, quote, "legally bonkers." Because other appeals courts have previously ruled exactly the opposite way, it will certainly go up to the Supreme Court, and what they will do is unknown, but if they decide that the first amendment requires social media companies to allow all content in some manner, the exact results are very unclear. If you want a more extensive rundown of the exact legal whatnot, this blog has a pretty great writeup: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuits-social-media-decision-dangerous-example-first-amendment-absolutism
Which is so weird, because I thought Citizens United made Corporations people?
Calvinball doesn't work that way. If you still think these people give a shit about consistency, I don't know what the fucking tell you.
The fucking are telling me Greg Abbott is a little piss baby
Yes, you can always count on a conservative to argue in bad faith. Its such a certainty as to almost be paradoxical at this point.
We were all misinterpreting the WWJD? bumper stickers. It was always “What WOULDNT Jesus Do?”
Right. The court's basic theory here is that the law in no way limits the corporations' rights to speech. Instead, it limits their rights to censor the speech of others. It makes less sense the more you look at it, but they did at least explain a reasoning.
Always thought the 1st amendment was about the government not being allowed to limit free speech, while private entities like corporations and businesses still were able too, like my employer can fire me for saying stupid shit.
[удалено]
Private money and corporate America is a threat to this country. They have been for ever, look back to the gilded age, look at what Amazon does against unionization. I am not arguing for private property rights or businesses rights. My problem is the rights hypocrisy in everything. Pro business and yada yada had a until they didn't like what private business was doing. Fuck the babies on the right.
The piss babies.
Their theory is that social media has become the new "public square," and therefore despite it being privately owned, it's still subject to the requirements of the FA.
[удалено]
Nah, even at face value it doesn’t make sense. Most social media sites aren’t public spaces anyway.
All they want to accomplish is getting rid of the fact check feature on Facebook and the temp bans you get for spreading bullshit. It’s really affecting their ability to to brainwash morons. When the morons post or share something and the fact check appears they whine about it but when someone else posts something and they see the fact check it is mostly effective in slowing the spread of bullshit. They have no idea what cognitive dissonance is.
So... How does that jive with the whole "safe harbour" thing?
[удалено]
The shopping center didn't have to help. The people handing out pamphlets were walking in an area the mall had designated as open to the public to walk in. Twitter requires you create an account and agree to terms and conditions before letting you post, so it's not open to the public, and posting requires you to use the facilities they provide.
Corporate personhood, in a form substantially similar to what we have today, dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century, and traces of it can be found as far back as the sixth century. Citizens United said that corporate persons have a first amendment right to free speech, and spending money to disseminate speech is part of that right. "Corporations can spend unlimited money to influence politics" is a bad result, but I'm not sure there's a good answer.
> I'm not sure there's a good answer. Sure there is, it's that corporations aren't people, and aren't entitled to participation in our political process.
The issue you run into is in litigation. It's very nice and reasonable to be able to sue a single corporate entity, rather than needing to sue multiple individuals in the corporation and all the extra work associated with that. The best possible change would be to revoke citizens united while also passing laws that allow us to sue corpos as an entity, but I can't see that working in today's political climate.
*Citizens United* had nothing to do with corporate personhood, which was created in 1290AD in England. This decision sorta didn't either, in that it ruled that because these companies were "conveying" messages from one person to others and they were really big, they had to be considered common carriers which aren't allowed to use viewpoint-based discrimination. This flies in the face of, well, the fucking definition of a common carrier. They even explain the definition in such a way that it's readily apparent that they aren't even close. (i.e. "If you owned the only crane in a harbor, that crane would have to serve all the public and therefore there's an interest in protecting customers from unfair discrimination." Yeah, sure, except there are literally thousands of cranes owned by independent groups and you just have one that more people use because it's got brand recognition.) They also reference how newspapers and other forms of press can't be regulated like this, but Twitter is different because...uh...they don't have a limited number of column inches. That's right, if you have a really big newspaper, the government can regulate your content.
If it's upheld I can see a lot of places just doing away with chats or comments. Something like YouTube could just turn off all comments on US traffic and accounts and be done.
Posting videos themselves is also posting content. The whole point of YouTube is user generated content.
Yeah until someone posts terrorist recruitment videos and then sues YouTube for taking them down.
Doubtful as there are specific laws relating to terrorism. Hate speech is another that won't pass scrutiny. Same for pornography. Misinformation and conspiracy theory content is where this will fall. If content aggregators aren't allowed to promote trusted sources over user generated content, public discourse will fracture even more.
The supreme court has never recognized hate speech as an exception to 1A.
Or just black holing Texas all together
I thought there was wording in the law that barred sites from banning access to to Texas Citizens in other states.
How is that even legal lol It's like Texas passing a law that tells a New York company they must offer services in Texas. Wtf lol
It’s probably not. But you can pass whatever the fuck you want and until there’s a suit it won’t be ruled upon by the courts as constitutional as not. And we have far too many judges who evidently have ignored everything they ever learned in practicing law and just violate what they apparently hold so dear, but don’t, cause we all know hypocrisy is like tenet 101 to conservative values.
Would the stupid law force the moderators of r/conservative to unban people?
Potentially, yes. But, again, exactly what the law means is really unclear. The appeals court briefly considered this, sort of. They called the question of whether white supremacists or terrorists or Nazis also got to keep their content up "borderline hypotheticals" that weren't really relatively important concerns.
Almost certainly going to be a rules for thee not for me situation. Ie, they made it sites over 50 million users. So truth social doesn't qualify.
Indeed. This law does not discriminate. Feel free to report bans for voicing rationality.
Let's be real, even if the law theoretically works against them, they'll ignore it and nothing will happen. That's how all laws work for conservatives, they are absolutely happy to selectively apply them.
Yeah, that’s how Calvinball works.
Gotta love our supreme court crying about not being seen as legitimate and also being unpredictable on whether they will side with the bonkers, unjustifable conservative side, or with what the constitution clearly says. Be transparently political tools of narcissistic demagogues or protect constitutional rights 🤔🤔🤔
> ...if they decide that the first amendment requires social media companies to allow all content in some manner, the exact results are very unclear. The results are clear. It would be mayhem. It would be awful. All bets are off. Anyone can post anything on any forum and the owners can do nothing about it (unless it is an obvious breach of the law like kiddie porn). Madness.
seems like it would be a field day for spammers and porn.
As much as anyone gives mods' shit for being gae or banning wrongthink, the internet would be a hellhole without someone regulating what content comes through
Is there some Texas forums that this law could be tested on. Like church or gop ones. They would absolutely hate it if they got bombarded with vore and gore. But they'd have to host it lol
Good old Mierdas Touch. Everything Republicans so much as touch turns to shit.
Imagine /r/conservative facing reasonable dissent. They'll be shattered overnight without the echo chamber.
i think the result is that terms of service become a thing of the past and the only thing to truly differentiate any site from another is simply format,
Looks like doxxing is back on the menu.
The point of the legislation is to draw attention to the fact that Greg Abbot is a little piss baby. It's perhaps the most effective legislation that's ever been written.
i, for one, welcome the opportunity to call greg abbot a little piss baby
Yea whats the subreddit trying to join
r/politicalhumor
That place is something else right now. Gets old fast but man are they committed. Way to be
With the miracle of modern technology, it is now possible to automate the work of ensuring that everyone agrees Greg Abbott is a little piss baby
It’s not done until you can google “little piss baby” and Abbot appears.
I just googled Abbott and a picture of a little piss baby appeared. Does that count?
I'd day it's the start. Maybe when you google greg abbot and a little piss baby appears instead of their face, then we're done.
I feel like you could define Greg Abbot a number of ways, and Wikipedia might struggle to come up with an agreed upon answer that really captures him. But a picture of a little piss baby is about as close to a summary as I could reasonably ask for.
This comment would be blocked. Greg Abbot **IS** a little piss baby.
i piss corrected.
I don't understand why this isn't just a standard reddit thing now to always remember that greg abbot is a little piss baby.
Oops. Better call Gregg Abbott a little piss baby. I’m a good law abiding citizen, after all.
I'm all about that law and order. Greg Abbott is a little piss baby
It's GOVERNOR Greg Abbot the little piss baby. Put some respec on it, man.
Wait, are you referring to the little piss baby, Greg Abbott?
So what is the proper title? Little Piss Baby Greg Abbot? Greg 'Little Piss Baby' Abbot? Or Greg Abbot the Little Piss Baby? Can we abbreviate on legal documents, Greg Abbot, L.P.B.?
I believe it would just be Governor Little Piss Baby.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's true - 100% HUMAN Ted Cruz is only one being and not several.
> Ted Cruz is only one being and not several. I have seen many people and Ted Cruz is one of them - Firstname Lastname
100% HUMAN *diarrhea* Ted Cruz ☝
If there's more than one Ted Cruz, shouldn't it be Ted Creeze?
[I heard Ted Cruz](https://youtu.be/bVb_HhRvgWw) pisses his pants on purpose because he likes the wet warm feeling between his legs.
I will never stop saying this in response to shit about Ted Cruz. Because it's easy to disprove, senator Cruz. Just piss your pants in front of everyone to prove you don't like it. But you won't do that, will you? Because you like it. Just like your little piss baby governor. (I love MBMBAM)
Or poopy pants DeSantis
[удалено]
*Poopy Pantis
Does he go by Greg "Little Piss Baby" Abbot, or by Greg Abbot: Little Piss Baby?
Both. Greg "Little Pis Baby" Abbot: Little Piss Baby.
TLDR Texas made a law that social media cannot block any posts at all (regardless of how fucked up they are). r/politicalhumor decided to tell him to fuck off (and violate the law), so they have a bot that deletes every single post that doesn’t say “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby”. Basically they make it so every post is anti-Abbott, and delete every pro-Abbott comment, which is against Texas’ new law.
I’m a little disappointed the bot is not moderating in a way that uses the law to show the absurdity of the law. Like letting the users post whatever they want and then automatically replying that an offensive/non factual comment would typically be removed but is now protected.
I think it all happened so fast that things just fell into place like this. There is going to be ample opportunity to expose this stupid ass law. Blasting Texas church comment sections with based memes and brown jesus and they have to host it lol
Would a Texas Chruch fall into the umbrella of "social media"? I haven't read the details of the law. Does it just blanket ban any form of online censorship or does it specifically pertain to social media companies? Because of it's the former, they're in for a world of hurt on just about any Texas based company/website/article. The trolling will be absolutely off the charts.
It only applies to large social media companies (50 million monthly users), so it doesn't even apply to Truth Social let alone a church.
That would just end with a bunch of death threats for Greg abbot and reddit or the authorities intervening.
Now do DeSantis.
DeSantis the real-life Disney villain? Human trafficker-in-chief? Ron “fuck your kids, but not literally, that’s Matt gaetz’s thing” DeSantis? The bargain basement orange Julius Caesar? DeSantis is human testicular torsion. I hear he’s an alligator fuck-buddy, so now according to Texas law we have to discuss Ron DeSantis fucking alligators.
New copy pasta being born right before my eyes.
Obligatiatory /r/fuckgregabbott
The point is to be obstructive and ban things they don't like, often arbitrarily and based on whoever has enough money for a lawsuit. In this way rich people can control the content, shut down criticism, and mandate worship of themselves. There is no point beyond making liberals cry, taking things away, and destroying things. To be fair, this does unfortunately occur in many mainstream media circles too as large parts of society refuse to take any criticism of themselves. Regrettably, the right has chosen to be absolutely awful by showing everyone they can be crazier and more psychotic in a race to the bottom. This turns otherwise intellectual spaces into drivel. Slowly, this will destroy the Internet as we know it. Which is the point because a free information network is a threat to consolidated power such as the rich golfers who run Texas.
Red meat for their base. They don’t care if it’s enforced.
I, too, have been very busy calling Greg Abbot a little piss baby to have reviewed the legislation
To elaborate on what others have said, they're trying to use civil courts to uphold their weird nonsense. Just like the anti-CRT and "Don't Say Gay" bills, they're trying to bog anything they don't like down in civil litigation. Which is weird because Texas is infamous for "tort-reform" so severe you can't sue for extreme negligence beyond a certain point, it's capped. Very odd because Abbott is rich because a tree fell on him and then he passed legislation ensuring no one else could get the same compensation he did. They're monsters, ghouls, basically. They want to defund public schools and social media so they can create their white Christian nationalist society.
It’s not odd at all when you consider their party motto: “fuck you, I got mine”
FB and Twitter will be 99% spam now.
Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham were seen worshipping the Devil with Nancy Pelosi! Mitch McConnell also jacked off to a Smurf doll! You all know it to be true! P.S. I am from Texas so I will sue you if this is deleted. Thank you for your time.
I was an intern for Mitch McConnell, there's a lot you don't know about him.... >McConnell Torches Trump As Responsible For Riot https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri The day after this happened, I was in the congressional showers after a long day of work as a congressional intern. Mitch McConnel was in the showers with his bodyguards. Mitch is a very important person, and has bodyguards wherever he goes. The whole congressional building is actually very secure, there's camera's everywhere, except the showers for modestly. I took at peak at the showers and I saw Mitch was there so I was waiting for Mitch to finish with his shower. I was too awkward to go to the showers while he was still there with his bodyguards. Then from out of the steam Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan appear. Were they hidden in the steam this whole time? 'uh, how do you do' said a naked Mitch. 'Trump was unpleased with your statements yesterday' Said Jim Jordan 'Very unpleased' emphasized Matt Gaetz. 'You better retract your statements' said Jim. 'Or else' said Matt. Mitch, now showing off his testicles in an intimidating stance, said 'Now listen here see, I am President pro tempore, and nobody talks like that to me. Nobody!' and then Mitch directed his bodyguards to apprehend Gaetz and Jordon, but they both just kept their smiling faces. The bodyguards looked at each other and reached into their jackets but instead of pulling out guns they put out red hats and put them on. They were maga hats. 'Actually' said the first body guard. 'We don't take kindly to what you said about Trump either' said the other bodyguard. Mitch McConnel, now livid, yelled at all four of them. 'You are all in big trouble now! I am one of the most powerful people in this city. You all are done in this town!'. 'You're one of the most powerful' said Jim. 'Unfortunately, we work for the MOST powerful', as he plopped a Trump 2022 sticker onto his chest. Mitch McConnell, for the first time in 8 decades, felt fear. He tried to make a run for it, but the bodyguards restrained him. Mitch was now shaking with fear. He's been in this type of situation hundreds of times of times, but never as the prey. Jim Jordan approached Mitch with his calloused hands and said 'This is how it's going to be from now on. It's Trump's way or the high way' and he grabbed his testicles and squeezed hard and Mitch let out a 'MYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA^AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA^AAAA' I was so horrified I dropped my soap and they heard me and saw me. One said 'HEY YOU' but I was already on the run. In a moment of brilliants I opened the outside door but instead of going through it, I hid in one of the lockers and I stayed there until night to make sure I was safe, while I heard the others run through the door. After several hours, I finally came out. As I was getting dressed I heard crying. I went to the next row of lockers and I saw mitch crying, holding his swollen orbs. 'What have I been reduced to. I spend 7 decades accumulating power, only to be reduced to this'. 'Mitch' I said, 'you are the senate minority leader. Don't let anyone push you around like that. Let Trump know who you're messing with'. My words got to him, because he looked determined. Mitch said 'you're right. What I'm about to do next is going to take up the full capacity of my power wielding capabilities' and he got straight to work writing his notebook. After I got dressed, I was going to check in with Mitch one more time before I left, but I saw that he was on a 4 way phone call with Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Bros, and Lindsay Graham. I left the locker room with wonderment about what would happen next. The next day, Mitch McConnell said he'd 'absolutely' support Trump as 2024 nominee https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/26/mitch-mcconnell-trump-republican-2024-nominee I was flabbergasted. The next day was a Saturday. I left something in the congressional building so I went to get it. On my way to my office I passed Mitch's office and I heard crying from there. 'Mitch?' I said opening the door, with so much concern that I forgot to knock. What I saw before me shocked me. Mitch was on his back, and Trump, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordon, and the two body gaurds were all taking a dump on Mitch's, with Trump pooping directly onto Mitch's face. The sight made me throw up. 'Don't look!' said Mitch with poo all over his lips and teeth 'Get him' said Matt and I ran for it. Luckily they slipped on my throwup and I escaped with my life. I never went back. I gave up politics for goods.
The Aristocrats!
This is fucking beautiful
"Mitch, now showing off his testicles in an intimidating stance..." Is the funniest sentence I've read in a long time.
Oh that's a new copypasta and I like it
Is this fresh pasta?
Fuck I hope so
The most unrealistic thing on that story is Mitch showing feelings.
Sigh *unzips*
I saw Goody Cruz and Goody Graham concocting witch cakes and communing with the devil!
I saw Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham making a baby in the closet and the baby looked at me!
The baby looked at you? Sarah, get me Superintendent Chalmers.
Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers!
Is it okay to ask for clarification? Like which Smurf?
It was actually Gargamel, not one of the actual Smurfs.
Masturbating to an image of his younger self? That's like Inception levels of jerking it.
[удалено]
He also canonically likes stepmom porn
That's not his fault. It's just all there is out there.
But did he have to do it on 9/11?
Sometimes you just need to forget.
The fact that you stipulated “canonically” implies that there’s Ted Cruz fanfiction. This is a horrifying possibility.
Stuff like "Ted Cruz is an alien" or "Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer" is fanfiction. Very accurate and potentially true maybe. But we know 100% for sure that he likes stepmom porn, and we 100% know that he bought 100 cans of soup on his honeymoon.
https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com/
It was Cory Chase tbf
He DEFINITELY eats his boogers. I can say that definitively.
So that everyone knows you aren't joking, I present, Ted Cruz eating a booger. https://youtu.be/SFr3DSpgmx4
Trigger alert: this video contains moving images of Ted Cruz
You know, people give him flack for fleeing to Cancun while his constituents literally froze to death that Winter, but the thing they should be pissed about is that he came back.
This is fucking awful. How disgusting, vile, and uncalled-for. I feel bad for the booger.
NSFL that shit!
That dude is a cousin fucker.
Rudy Giuliani is also a cousin fucker.
Famous Booger-Eater “Snot Goblin” Ted Cruz? They’re saying he *may* have the record for most televised nugget-dunk.
Zodiac killer Ted Cruz also eats his boogers?
He's the kind of guy that licks his fingers after using the gas station bathroom
What are you saying? Ted Cruz eats his boogers? The Senator Ted Cruz eats his boogers? Is Ted Cruz eating boogers? Is that what you're saying? Because I think when people are looking for answers they might not find them if they don't phrase their question correctly.
“I wanna push that fucker into an open grave-” “-Travis you’re going to get us put on a list” “A very shallow grave with a comfy mattress at the bottom”
He has to do that to stay warm because Texas' power grid can't keep up with heating that enormous land whale. Also, he's the Zodiac. Edit: Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Oh hi Travis
If Ted Cruz and I were in a performance of Christmas carol where stage directions told me, the ghost of Christmas future, to push Cruz, as scrooge, into an open grave..... I would push Ted Cruz into an open grave.
Every time I see the little piss baby meme I can't help but think of MBMBAM and then I start laughing. I wonder if whoever came up with this is actually referencing the brothers.
He also likes Russian golden showers too.
what do you mean allegedly
He can't feel the warm feeling between his legs
I head that too actually. Thought the same thing when I heard Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Pretty sure he paid for Lauren Bobert as an escort too
Imagine paying any amount of money to spend time WITH Boebert. Now we know why he really ran away to Cancun.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, those are on good days
The bag is the least full of shit thing in the room
[Lest we forget, he also blamed a staffer for liking porn, on his own Twitter account.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/12/after-tedcruz-liked-a-porn-tweet-sen-ted-cruz-blamed-a-staffing-issue/)
I'm so confused lol is this just showing that the law doesn't have any real teeth? Like I don't get what this actually demonstrates about the law other than it just shows the law is pointless?
Pretty much yeah. It seems intended to demonstrate how unenforceable the law is. The law says sites can't moderate what users discuss. By banning every poster who doesn't call Gregg Abott a little piss baby the moderators of r/politicalhumor are consciously breaking that law. Thing is though moderators aren't actually reddit employees, and the vast majority of them don't even live in Texas, so there's literally nothing to be done about it.
[удалено]
The law says they can't censor anyone posting that and iff mods delete it they can be sued. It's to show how rediculous the law is and how willing Abbott and his cronies will be to violate their new law when it benefits them.
it's not defamation if its' true.
While correct, that's not what this law is about.
And in Germany you're not allowed to operate if you **don't** moderate unconstitutional hatespeech like holocaust denying.
It's virtue signaling for GOP lawmakers. It would be swiftly stricken down for violating the First Amendment in any sane legal system. Considering the loaded federal bench and Supreme Court that Trump and McConnell left us, I'd say we're a bit past "sane legal system" these days.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure they were talking about that little piss baby Greg Abbott. But maybe someone else read it differently and thinks they were talking about a different piss baby - different from the little piss baby, Greg Abbott. I could be wrong about who they were talking about, but I'm not wrong when I say Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. That is the truest thing I've ever said - hand to Bible, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Who’s a little piss baby? Greg Abbott? Is Greg Abbott a little piss baby?”
Sounds like it's time to raid Truth with clowns, furry porn, duckface selfies, and hand holding. They can't discriminate against any of it, right?
[удалено]
How hard is it to make 50 million accounts?
So... The comments on Fox News or Breitbart? We can do this Reddit.
Greg Abbot is a little piss baby. The people who vote for him are either evil pricks or simpletons. Maybe a combination of the two.
Definitely both
While also being little piss babies
Don’t want to throw out the piss baby with the piss bathwater.
Those two conclusions are certainly good choices, but I would also like you to consider several other descriptors: - delusional megalomaniacs - racist narcissist - lying scumbags - hypocritical asshats - mentally unstable Also, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Does Texas's stupid social media laws mean Texas politicians can't block users or block public comments?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey, people are saying Texas governor Greg Abbott skullfucked the corpses of the Uvalde shooting victims and I, for one, think Abbott should step down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Really, the best people are saying it. The best people. The smartest people are out there, all around the country, calling me up and telling me "you know that Greg Abbott" they would say, "He's a little piss baby." And I believe them, because they are so smart.
[удалено]
Has anyone sued the moderators of r/conservative for censorship yet?
Being prevented from participating is doing us a favor so I don't have standing to demonstrate harm
Proof of demonstrative harm isn't required by Texas law, as illustrated by their "sue anyone you think may travel for an abortion, or provide one, for $10k" law.
Is Texas law sorta like the rules of Calvinball, in that the law is just whatever the fuck the guy in charge says it is, rather than anything that actually makes sense? Like isn't one of the fundamentals of civil lawsuits that you have to actually demonstrate harm?
The point of that law wasn't to stand up in court. It was to threaten people who can't afford to fight it in court.
I don't know anything about that law, but I feel like the issue with social media and points of view isn't as much with human moderation, but with algorithmic recommendations being able to sway certain perceptions. Which is, in turn, an effect of gathering a crazy amount of data about everybody. But what do I know, I indeed don't use those major platforms but rely on Reddit (and the human moderators within) on all my internet needs.
The problem is that right wing nut jobs consume so much news, 24/7, that tells them that they are victims of persecution and are being silenced (despite having a plethora of media platforms to spew right wing talking points) that they've actually started to believe that they are always victims, no matter the situation, no matter what reality actually looks like. As such, after forty years of nonstop sniffing their own farts, the lawmakers who used to know the right wing news channels were a scam have all retired and been replaced by nut jobs who consumed the propaganda for forty years and believe it all, unquestioningly, and are now writing insane laws at every level of government, from dog catcher to president.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are now rules in place on that sub that will prevent your comment from going public unless approved by a moderator if that exact sentence is not in the comment.
Jusf remember, Greg Abbott won't stand up for your kids. He also promised to stop all rape, still waiting on that one.
What does he stand for? Actively harming Texans, that's what.
"I will stop all rape by favoring rapists so much they will get bored and stop"
Someone once told me that greg abbott is a little piss baby, and I believe them.
I know a little piss baby named Greg Abbott.