Mediaboss Marketing

from the told-ya dept

For a while now, as Democrats have insisted that the two main antitrust bills that have been able to scrape together bipartisan support wont have any impact on content moderation, we keep pointing out that the only reason they have Republican support is because Republicans want it to impact content moderation. After all, Ted Cruz was practically gleeful when he talked about using this bill to unleash the trial lawyers to sue over moderation.

Earlier this week, we cheered on a proposal from four Democratic Senators, led by Brian Schatz, to add a tiny amendment to the AICOA bill to say that it cant be used to create liability for content moderation. If, as Senator Amy Klobuchar and others supporting this bill (including my friends at EFF and Fight for the Future) are correct that this bill already cannot be abused to enable litigation over content moderation, this amendment shouldnt be a problem. All it would be doing is clarifying that the bill doesnt do exactly what those supporters say it shouldnt be read to do.

Except the Republicans cant help themselves but to give up the game. The Federalist, not generally the most trustworthy of news sources but generally a reliable mouthpiece for Trumpist Republicans ran an article about the Schatz proposal, saying flat out that Republicans would pull their support for AICOA if the minor amendment Schatz suggested is included.

First, lets remind everyone how simple the proposed amendment is:

Protection for Content Moderation Practices.Nothing in section 3(a)(3) may be construed to impose liability on a covered platform operator for moderating content on the platform or otherwise inhibit the authority of a covered platform operator to moderate content on the platform, including such authority under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)), or any other provision of law.

Thats it. If you dont think this bill can or should be used to sue over content moderation, then this shouldnt be a problem. But if you do think websites should be sued for their editorial discretion, well then its a problem. And according to the Federalist, its a real problem. It notes that this Amendment would kill the only conservative or populist ideas along for the ride on the bill.

In other words, its flat out admitting that, as weve been saying all along, the only reason Republicans support the bill is that they see it as a Trojan Horse to sue over content moderation decisions.

And thus, the Federalist notes that nearly all Republicans supporting the bill would walk if this tiny Amendment is included:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, has reportedly already promised Republicans will walk if the changes are made, and hes right: Populists and conservatives like Sens. Josh Hawley, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Rep. Matt Gaetz would flee.

As if to confirm that Republicans will bail if the law is explicit that it doesnt do what supporters of the bill insist it doesnt do, Rep. Ken Buck (who is the lead Republican sponsor of the companion bill in the House) tweeted out the Federalist article, implying that he, too, would bail if the bill is clarified to say it has no impact on content moderation:

So, there you have it. Supporters of the bill can deny all they want that the bill can be used to sue over content moderation decisions, but the Republicans are flat out telling them that the only reason they support the bill is because they believe it can be used to sue over content moderation decisions.

Honestly, that should make supporters of the bill think hard about what it is theyre actually supporting here.

Filed Under: aicoa, amy klobuchar, antitrust, brian schatz, chuck grassley, content moderation, ken buck

Read the original here:
Republicans Announce That If Content Moderation Is Written Out Of Antitrust Bills, They'll Pull Their Support - Techdirt

Veteran GOP pollster Frank Luntz said on Thursday that a recent New Hampshire poll showing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) narrowly edging out former President Trump indicates Republicans are saying its time to move on from Trump.

During an interview on CNNs New Day, Luntz and the networks chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, spoke about the University of New Hampshires latest Granite State Poll, which found that 39 percent of likely GOP primary voters in the state would back DeSantis as their first choice in a list of Republicans who are considered possible presidential candidates.Trump, meanwhile, received 37 percent support in that poll. The results are within the surveys margin of error of 5.5 percentage points.

DeSantis is the greatest threat to Trump when it comes to the Republican Party, Collins said.

Its more than a threat, Luntz noted. The governor is proving that his approach and what hes trying to accomplish and what he has accomplished in Florida is more significant and Republicans are now saying its time to move on.

The pollster noted that Trump is still the most popular political figure within the GOP, adding that the former president now has a specific challenger for the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

Trump and DeSantis have not officially announced that they are running in the 2024 presidential election, though the former president has at times teased the possibility.

The development comes against the backdrop of hearings conducted by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, which have sought to show the role that Trump and his allies have played in pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence and state officials to overturn the 2020 election results.

Theres now polling out that shows that Donald Trump is actually paying a price for what these hearings are showing, Luntz said on Thursday.

Read more here:
GOP pollster Frank Luntz: Republicans are saying its time to move on from Trump - The Hill

Former President Donald Trump has railed against the January 6 panel's public hearings.Chet Strange/Getty Images

Frank Luntz, a GOP pollster, told CNN that Trump is "paying a price" over the January 6 hearings.

He added that Trump can "send out his emails," but they're "having less and less of an impact."

Luntz also commented on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, calling him "more than a threat" to Trump.

Conservative pollster Frank Luntz said this week that he thinks former President Donald Trump's popularity is being damaged by the January 6 panel's public hearings on the Capitol riot.

Speaking on CNN's New Day program, Luntz said the panel focused "too much" on politicians but commented that the hearings are still hurting Trump.

"Donald Trump is actually paying a price for what these hearings are showing. So it's having an impact, even among Republicans," Luntz said.

He also commented on the public hearings not providing enough visual material of the actual riot.

"And in the end, the American people react to the visuals, not just the verbal, not just the conversation, and it is those visuals that proved to them that something really awful happened on January 6," he added.

Luntz also told CNN that polling in New Hampshire showed that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is ahead of Trump in the state.

"Ron DeSantis is actually ahead of Donald Trump in a very credible survey. Trump's numbers are actually falling. And that is what's changing the dynamic here," Luntz said, adding that these changing impressions might influence whether Trump eventually runs for president again in 2024.

Asked about how DeSantis might fare in 2024, Luntz told CNN that the Florida governor was now "more than a threat" to Trump. Luntz highlighted that DeSantis had been proving himself and giving Republicans an opportunity to say that "it's time to move on" from Trump.

"Make no mistake, Donald Trump is the most popular political figure within the Republican Party, but there is now a specific challenger," Luntz said. "And Trump can yell and scream and send out his emails, I'm on his list, and they're all emotional, and they all are meant to blow things up, but they're having less and less of an impact with every single month."

Story continues

Luntz has openly criticized Trump on several occasions. For instance, in May last year, Luntz said Trump's baseless claims of voter fraud might cost the GOP the House in 2022. In April, Luntz revealed that Republican lawmakers were privately "laughing at" Trump behind his back because they think of him as a "child."

Meanwhile, Trump has railed against the January 6 panel's public hearings, demanding equal airtime on national TV and releasing a 12-page statement bashing the investigation while continuing to tout his baseless claims of voter fraud.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Link:
Top GOP pollster says Trump is 'paying a price' even among Republicans for what the January 6 hearings have revealed - Yahoo News

To the Editor:

Re Trump Pressured States to Comply on Fake Electors (front page, June 22):

There is a silver lining that I did not expect in the Jan. 6 hearings. I am a lifelong Democrat. The Republicans in the news over the last several years have been frightening in their cruel and vicious remarks and extreme agendas on race relations, gay marriage and abortion and, most important, in their devotion to the ex-president.

But the hearings have brought some very reasonable, patriotic and honest Republicans to the front. There are people who voted for Donald Trump and supported his platform, but when faced with his drive to overturn a fair election, they are coming through. They are telling the truth about the lies and corruption and putting their careers and maybe their lives on the line.

It gives me hope that there is a way out of the nightmare of the last administrations corruption and a way forward with sane debate and compromise.

Joan BancroftDenver

To the Editor:

Of all the crimes Donald Trump may have committed, or inspired his deluded faithful to commit, the malicious attack on two election workers, Wandrea Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, is the single most shameless act of deceit and cowardice of his entire pathetic career.

Two humble women worked selflessly during a pandemic to uphold our democracy. Donald Trump misused the power of the presidency to maliciously destroy the good reputation of these women in his quest to undermine our democracy.

If no other details or testimony from these hearings are remembered, future generations will ask how someone who had no sense of decency could actually be president of the United States.

Asher FriedCroton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

To the Editor:

As the victims of threats and verbal assaults, Wandrea Moss, her mother and other members of the family should be as eligible to receive 24/7 security and peace of mind as Brett Kavanaugh and other Supreme Court justices and their families. We owe them their lives back.

Lois BerkowitzOro Valley, Ariz.

To the Editor:

Re Texas G.O.P. Adopts Stolen Election Claims (news article, June 20):

Many Republicans who reject President Bidens 2020 victory are occupying seats in statehouses or in Congress to which they themselves were elected in that very same illegitimate election. If that election was so fraudulent, how could these same Republican election deniers (so conveniently) accept their own 2020 elections?

David E. CohenNorth Haledon, N.J.

To the Editor:

Re Justices Deliver Win to Schools Based in Faith (front page, June 22):

Whatever you may think of government offers to pay the tuition for the private education of children, the paying of that tuition to religious institutions is clearly a violation of the First Amendments prohibition against the government establishment of religion, despite the current Supreme Courts majority holding to the contrary.

There is no more clear government support of religious institutions than sending public money their way, exactly the kind of government action that the First Amendment prohibits. It is not the courts duty to support religion, only to guarantee that government stays out of the business of religion and does not prohibit its free exercise.

What we have instead is a court bent on strengthening religion in this country. Never mind that the Constitution provides otherwise.

Bruce NeumanWater Mill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Once a state provides funding for private schools, it cannot then refuse to fund religious schools. People who believe that this exclusion is justified based on the separation of church and state are getting it wrong.

Andrea EconomosHartsdale, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Re So Long, Tolstoy Station? Cities Decolonize by Erasing Russian Names (news article, June 8):

Having visited Ukraine, including Kyiv, in more peaceful times, I can certainly understand that eliminating the names of prominent Russians from public places in an effort to decolonize this wonderful nation is very much in order. However, the name of the author Leo Tolstoy, a true person of peace and good will, should remain.

James K. RileyPearl River, N.Y.

To the Editor:

The headline on your June 9 article about browsing in bookstores read, Can Any App Capture This Experience? The answer is obvious of course not.

Book browsing is a physical experience, involving visual, tactile and sometimes even olfactory sensations. In a physical bookshop, people are moved to pull a book off a shelf and take a closer look for many reasons, some obvious, some subtle and some downright mysterious.

Every book browser has experienced those magical instances in which they have found books they werent looking for or even knew existed, but which to some degree affected their life.

The possibility of making another such serendipitous discovery is why people love to browse in bookstores. It cant be engineered or made subject to an algorithm.

M.C. LangChevy Chase, Md.

See original here:
Opinion | Patriotic and Honest Republicans Telling the Truth - The New York Times

Clark County residents should vote for Republican candidates, unless:

They like free and fair elections and believe that the 2020 election was not stolen. Republicans in many states are trying to give election officials the power to overturn elections when they dont agree with the outcome.

They are diabetic, at risk for diabetes, or know someone who is diabetic. Republicans voted against capping the cost of insulin at $35 a month.

They are a veteran or support veterans. Republicans voted against guaranteeing benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service.

They enjoy paying record high gas prices. Republicans voted against a bill that would make it unlawful for oil and gas companies to raise fuel prices excessively while their profits are surging.

They have a baby or know a baby. Republicans voted against a bill that would provide aid to solve the baby formula shortage.

They worry about homegrown white nationalist terrorists. Republicans voted against a bill designed to combat domestic terrorism.

They like having their taxes increased. Many Republicans want to raise taxes on working people, while keeping the tax breaks enjoyed by companies and the wealthy.

They are at or may someday reach retirement age. Some Republicans want to limit or eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicaid through sunset provisions.

Continue reading here:
Letter: Republicans against the people - The Columbian