I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation’s in… We kept it grey!"

Bureaucratic babbel at it’s finest.

I understand. I’m ND so it’s hard for me to pickup social cues as it is, text makes it especially hard to figure out emotion or intention at times.

Thank you again for helping me understand a little better. 😁

This is why I asked if anyone could clarify for me. Thank you for explaining in a more natural manor, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me.

With your clarification, it definitely seems to me like the protections in place should stay there. Maybe there are issues with some of these companies, but I don’t think removing these particular protections will change the issues I see, just stifle open speech.

This is exactly why I asked if anyone could clarify for me, I didn’t understand what was really being put on the political table here. Thank you for elucidating, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me. I understand that’s often done purposely by the people submitting such legislation, so I usually have to find someone who can understand it better then I can.

Answering my own question, it seems that “Sunset acts” are a common occurrence in legislation that end programs and activities that have more or less run their course or stopped being effective or meaningful.

The reason this Sunset Act is being mentioned is…

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was created to protect early internet platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content, a safeguard widely seen as essential to the internet’s development. As social media companies have become some of the nation’s most powerful and influential corporations, critics have questioned whether that protection should remain.

… so my understanding is that this Sunset will remove some outdated protections from social media platforms, effectively forcing them to adapt with better policies and practices or open themselves up to litigation.

Since the text of this bill almost exclusively “strikes” sections of other, preexisting legislation, I can’t quite tell what it really does without trying to locate and read each of the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone have a quick summery of what effect this proposal would have if passed?

The US is a malign actor for the US as well. Our government has become a danger to our own citizens.

That’s a pretty fast Sainthood, if I remember correctly. Didn’t it used to take decades after death for that to happen?

I thought he slapped a man for making a joke? I can see why many folks would see little difference, I mean violence is violence, but if we’re talking degrees Id rather get doses of slap then punch. Still unacceptable in the situation, however, and I believe what ever issue Will had that night skills have been handled in private.

All that being said, the man has aged and people move on.

The issue some of us take with that is no, we did not all decide we needed more racism and hate. In fact, more and more evidence is being found that shows the entire thing was rigged, and the true majority decision was not acknowledged by the folks who had mostly been behind the scenes before.

Your right, I double checked the number and I misremembered, it should be ⅗ not ⅕.

Yeah, not surprised at the Orange Blunder finding a way to bring back slavery. Oh his cronies will think up a different name for it, but soon these poor people will be segregated and counted as ⅗ of a person for purposes of population counting when drawing up political districts.

At this rate we are going to end up with Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo before Christmas…

Edit: Correction of fractions, the historical amount was ⅗, not ⅕.

It lost steering power, not electrical power. Kinda like all the warning lights in your car turning on at once and the engine shutting down, even though the headlights are still on.