In response to my posts supporting repeal of Section 230 (https://t.co/ceZZWXyzi6 and https://t.co/af0rjlGTVF) I have a number of people give me horror stories about bad post-repeals hypotheticals (thread)

Let me say that none of these hypoetheticals sound that bad to me (I couldn't care less if Substack goes under -- sorry to all the Substackers out there), but let me give a hypothetical horror story allowed by Section 230
Imagine that some right-winger bought tens of millions of dollars worth of ads on Facebook, with a doctored photo, showing your favorite politician, activist, writer, academic etc, doing the the most disgusting thing imagineable
The target of these ads would of course have the right to sue the person who paid for the ads for defamation.
Suppose that "person" was the XYZ corporation, whose existence is a post office box in Lincoln, Nebraska, registered to John Doe.
That would be the end of the line, barring some serious investigative work to find the real person/people behind the ad.
What about Mark Zuckerberg, who pocketed tens of millions from this libelous ad? Well, Section 230 says that he has no responsibility.
That is in contrast to a print outlet like the NYT or broadcast outlet like CNN, both of which could be sued up the wazoo if they had run this ad.
Okay, that's my Section 230 horror story for the day.

More from Economy

What do a Tory Peer, Selwyn Gummer (Lord Chadlington), David Sumner ( Sumner Group Holdings) and the Sanchez Perez family (drugs money, laundered through Gold mines) have in common?

It’s another company-saving a £50 million PPE contract shaggy dog story

Connections, connections


What a start to the story

“A bulletproof truck trundled down the road in downtown Lima, guarded by 18 policeman
They were wearing body armour & wielding high velocity rifles

No-one was taking any chances
This was a Special delivery for Peruvian Prosecutor for an anti drug trial


That was in 2011, the same year that Lord Chadlington’s daughter got married in Chadlington to Henry Allsopp.

Who was there?
Yes Kirstie Allsopp of Location, location, location and all this Covid nonsense fame) is his sister

Camilla, his Godmother

Jeremy Hunt

Cameron


Well. Come on. Lord Chadlington had been chair of the local Witney Conservative Association. It’s only fair.

Hang on. Julian Wheatland, Director of SCL Group/ Cambridge Analytica had also been chair of Witney Conservative Association...and campaigned for his mate Cameron

Are we sure Julian Wheatland and his side kick Alexander Nix were not there too @JolyonMaugham ?

I mean. They move in the same North Oxford circles.
One of the hardest problems post-pandemic will be how to revive so-called "left behind" places.

Post-industrial towns, run-down suburbs, coastal communities - these places were already struggling before the crisis and have fared worst in the last year.

What should we do?

Today, @ukonward sets out the beginning of a plan to repair our social fabric. It follows our extensive research over the last year, expertly chaired by @jamesosh, and funded by @jrf_uk, @Shelter and @peoplesbiz.

https://t.co/d3T5uPwG9N


Before I get into recommendations, some findings from previous Onward research.

In 2018, we found 71% of people believe "community has declined in my lifetime"

In 2019, we found 65% would rather live in “a society that focuses on giving people more security” vs 35% for freedom


This was the basis for our identification of 'Workington Man' as the archetypal swing voter in 2019, and led us to predict (correctly) that large numbers of Red Wall seats could fall. A key driver was a desire for security, belonging and pride in place.


There is also a key regional dimension to this. We also tested people's affinity with the UK's direction of travel, across both cultural and economic dimensions - revealing the extraordinary spread below: London vs. the Rest.
https://t.co/HrorW4xaLp
Long rant: This @WSJ article bemoaning the decline of price theory is really worth highlighting. The economic theories and so called "laws of economics" that the WSJ consistently and religiously defends, are the source of their authority, power and privilege.


So called economic "theories" like "you get paid exactly what you are worth" and "markets are perfectly efficient" and "when wages rise, jobs fall" and "raising taxes on the rich kills jobs and growth" and "increasing justice decreases economic efficiency" and...

"Government intervention in markets always creates more harm than good" and "any regulation that constrains corporations kills growth and productivity", etc etc are effectively a protection racket for the rich. It is a set of internally consistent and mathematized conjectures...

That are all demonstrably nonsense. But getting people to accept these "theories" as laws of nature and immutable, timeless truths is the most effective way our current economic elites have found to maintain and enhance the status of the powerful and persuade the weak and poor...

to shut the fuck up and accept their lot in life. Now, FINALLY, some economists- are actually beginning to look at the real world evidence to determine whether these propositions actually describe anything real here on planet earth. Let me save you some time. The answer is NO.

You May Also Like