The Senate and electoral college favor them massively. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to change any laws that might counter their preferences.
Your objection really seems to be engagement in culture wars.
Did you accidently respond to the wrong comment?
What the person said was that a chemical manufacturing company should not be "biting their nails" over some random Marijuana decrimininalization speech, that a random candidate is making.
Turns out being `apolitical` is kind of a myth.
If Valve bans me from Steam for my language is that also violation of my free speech or is it their right to protect their platform?
You do realize both ABC and CNN literally went live and said they won't air his speech, right?
Why? That's a serious question.
The reason liability protections exist for information services is because information services can't exist without them. It's not possible for an information service provider to be strictly liable for what their users post while having anything like a reasonable quality of service or cost. Think 10 hour moderation queues to post on Instagram, which costs $15/month, and requires using your driver's license or other photo ID to sign up so they can forward libel suits to you.
Requiring strict liability on the part of information service providers will likely drastically reduce the amount of free speech. Because they're going to aggressively take down/reject anything that has the slightest possibility of them getting sued. They won't suddenly morph into the town square because an unmoderated Internet town square is a filthy, ugly place that repels users and advertisers and hurts the bottom line.
I would propose that moderation decisions be logged and reviewable on demand (at the plantiff's cost) in front of a reputable arbitrator of the platform's choice.
What part of Section 230 do you think had any bearing on the issue being discussed?
That makes no sense, since the entire, explicit purpose of Section 230 was to free platforms from preexisting disincentives si that they could be free to “restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” without incurring liability that would otherwise attend such editorial control.
You are literally suggesting that the price of Section 230 protection ought to be not doing the things to which Section 230 protection applies in the first place.
Also, I think it's wrong, in any cases, to think of Section 230 as a special grant of liability protection, any more than the preexisting different liability of distributors from that of publishers is a special grant. It's a recognition that online media enables models that would not be practical with the media for which the traditional liability roles for content developed, and that venues for content which wasn't pre-screened in detail but over which largely reactive editorial control was exercised was all of technically and economically practical on the internet, inconsistent with the premises of the classic publisher vs. distributor liability analysis, and already, at the time the Act was considered, starting to be stifled by application of the traditional publisher vs. distributor rules. We don't force bookstores to be neutral platforms to be free of publisher liability, because we recognize that bookstores aren't naturally going to be pre-screening content at the detailed level print publishers will, and it doesn't make sense to stifle them by forcing them to. 230 is the same idea, just for a business activity that didn't exist when the common law of liability was evolving.
Plenty of conservatives left on Twitter.
Second, the other is accountable to the same laws as anyone else.
Are they, though?
> the other is largely unaccountable
No the market will hold them to account.
https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1352293847385124864
If voting in this country wasn't suppressed at the local level by Republican state governments, the federal government would look very different. It would be much more diverse and representative of real Americans, not just white male Americans.
[0] year,dem_candidate,dem_votes,gop_candidate,gop_votes
1992,Bill Clinton,44909806,George H. W. Bush,39104550
1996,Bill Clinton,47401185,Bob Dole,39197469
2000,Al Gore,50999897,George W. Bush,50456002
2004,John Kerry,59028444,George W. Bush,62040610
2008,Barack Obama,69498516,John McCain,59948323
2012,Barack Obama,65915795,Mitt Romney,60933504
2016,Hillary Clinton,65853514,Donald Trump,62984828
2020,Joe Biden,81268867,Donald Trump,74216747
This is all pointless anyway for a union of states. Germany is underpowered compared to Luxembourg in the EU by design -- the same is true in the US. Should California ever go back to being conservative, as it was until Clinton, it will disadvantage Republicans just the same.
I think we're operating on different definitions of "favored". The definition I'm using (and which most of the English-speaking world uses) is "have a fundamental advantage". He won the electoral college narrowly. He won the popular vote handsomely. That's a sign of a thumb on the scale in a pretty fundamental way.
He didn't though. He won 57% of the electoral vote and 51% of the popular vote.
"Favor" only matters to extent it helps a candidate get over 270 EV.
The electoral college was decided by about 40k votes this time, and about 80k votes last time. The popular vote margin was in the millions. That should tell you something about how far the EC is from reality.
The 50 senators who represent semi-conservative states represent the same number of states as the 50 who represent more liberal states.
I'm aware of that. And that structure favors one side more than another. This is not a controversial statement - the numbers (y'know, facts and logic) back that up.
States are lines on a map. In the current setup they have more influence than the actual people living in those states. Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some views?
Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic.
Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you?
> Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some views?
Yes, and straight up popular vote leads to the same thing. That's why we have a system that is a combination of popular vote and state vote.
* The People are represented by the House.
* The States are represented by the Senate.
* Both are represented by the President.
Seems like a well-balanced system to me.
Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state?
What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs? Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?
Moreover, if this was really and actually true, why was the 17th Amendment passed? Why aren't senators still chosen by state legislatures, or nominated by governors and confirmed by legislatures? Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?
> Seems like a well-balanced system to me.
Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.
The United States is a union of states. The people have representation at the federal level, and the state level.
> Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?
No. The people of the state are the state, not the government of the state. Again, the state gets representation because we are a union of states. And local governments get representation at the state level. There are many concerns of a people, and we have people representing those concerns at different levels of government, from local to state to federal. Otherwise we could just have a single person represent everyone.
> Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?
The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC). The EC is the House + Senate. So no, it's not an imbalance.
> Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.
I don't have a side. I vote for policies that I agree with, which has changed over time. Party support of certain issues has changed over time as well.
I am pretty tired, however, of people crying about foundational aspects of my country because they lost an election. I think the increasing concentration of power in the federal government is a bad idea.
It's more a genuine concern that continuing on this path will result in a federal government whose policies don't reflect the views of the vast majority of the nation. You can already see this on issues such as cannabis.
> The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the EC adequately represents the people, since it takes the Senate numbers into account.
Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.
As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.
* electoral districts are represented by the House [0]
* states are represented by the Senate
* who represents the people as a whole (if anyone) ?
* who or what does the President represent?
So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.
The state level representation of the senate is very arbitrary
We can do that all day to no real effect.
The electoral college does not matter. They go the way their states go as was made quite clear in the last election.
EDIT: Of course it matters how the voting system was designed. The EC votes the way their State votes.
The forefathers intended for states to have some say in the matter. We are a representative democracy. That is how the system was designed.
The key term is "now". After getting about 40m more votes. Be honest. Is that balanced?
To say the Republicans have any kind of advantage right now except for maybe the courts is incorrect.
As another user said: "The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 Democrats represent 41 million more people than the 50 Republicans"
You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.
And the argument is that this democracy isn't sufficiently "representative", since it doesn't represent everyone equally. Indeed that's an explicit non-goal.
> You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
But you can agree that the rules of the game are rigged against one side. You don't get to deny that just because you're winning.
There are many other representative democracies that do not have any of these "features".
Also, I thought a reply ago, you stated that the left was winning, not losing.
This has nothing to do with Orwell. Im not sure why you bring him up.
The forefathers designed the system this way. I agree with the way it was designed. It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
Because saying "it's a representative democracy" is doublespeak. If you have one person representing tens of millions and another person representing a small city (~150k people), and they have the same vote, it's not meaningfully "representative". Saying "it's a representative democracy" doesn't tell you anything about the fairness of the system.
> I agree with the way it was designed.
Because it favors you. It would be a bad system even if it was the other way around (i.e. it favored the other side).
> It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I'm still to hear a good argument for why it's better for small states to call shots instead.
> I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
I'm fine with that. They were as fallible as anyone else and could not have foreseen that their system might have flaws. There's no need to deify them and think that everything they did was right.
Similar logic applies to the Senate: regardless of population every state gets two senators. Right-wing senators have received fewer actual votes (by individual voters) than left-wing senators for years, yet in that time right-wing control of the senate has been more common than left-wing control. Right now the split in the Senate is 50-50 (Vice President, a Democrat, breaks the tie) but the total number of votes cast for Democratic senators was much higher than the number cast for Republicans.
You literally have to deny reality when you deny that the electoral college and the senate represent a structural advantage for Republicans right now.
Reality is we are representative democracy. The forefathers deliberately designed it that way.
Reality must line up with your arguments. It does not.
If what you say is true, Trump would most likely be president right now.
Dems own entire cities with the largest population centers. Dems have better organized grassroots. Dems have California and New York, the main stream media.
What advantages you speak of are moot compared to those ones.
We are a representative democracy and we always have been.
The EC was more than a compromise, it was an integral part of a system that prevents too much power being handed to any one institution or demographic. And forcing national candidates to appeal to a multitude of states rather than a handful of cities has a moderating effect.
If anything, what's outdated about the EC is we need more checks on the political influence that is centralized in cities because the founders didn't anticipate urbanization.