"Well, shit, that didn't work." - MAGA, again.

Whose beach shack is that?

I've been thinking this was a prime candidate for the Streisand effect since I first heard about it. Good for him.

"Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous"

It's like in the fifth Harry Potter book when Hermione gets Rita Skeeter to interview Harry about Voldemort's return, and it's published in Luna's dad's magazine, and Umbridge bans it, thereby inadvertently ensuring every student at Hogwarts reads it

This is the second time in the last few months they stopped CBS from airing something and it resulted in more people seeing it (the 60 minutes segment about the El Salvador prison being the other one)

TV super duper dead

It's Barbara Streisand's.

The term was coined in 2005 by Mike Masnick of Techdirt after Barbra Streisand attempted to suppress the publication of a photograph by Kenneth Adelman showing her clifftop residence in Malibu, taken to document coastal erosion in California.

Shy of those houses being there, what’s so bad about the sea reshaping the shoreline? Hasn’t that been going on for quite some time already, like, a few hundred million years or so?

Things humans have done, like damming rivers, have accelerated and altered coastal erosion patterns to a huge degree.

It's a natural phenomenon but AFAIK it can be accentuated or accelerated by the rise of the sea level, or the passage of boats and vessels. It can be entirely normal, but it can also be provoked or worsened by other factors. And that's why we document and do some research about it?!

I'm not a climate scientist but luckily the Wikipedia's article on the Streisand effect has a link to coastal erosion if you want to know more.

That makes sense. We want to understand our impact on the environment. I guess I was just wondering why it seemed like an inherent problem, but I suppose it’s more a question of whether we’re disturbing the natural process in ways that ultimately cause undue detriment to the ecosystem.

CBS is run by out of touch maga boomers who want Colbert off the air anyways. They want to turn CBS into Fox News, and these are just the growing pains.

Is 6 million views a lot for him? How does that compare to his other videos?

Aka the skeeter effect

As a side note, "talarico" is a slang in my country for a man that sleeps with engaged women.

Anyone got a link to the video that's not on YouTube

Colbert’s most-watched “The Late Show” political interview of all time is with then-candidate Donald Trump on Sept. 23, 2015, which now boasts 17.85 million views

Wait. Colbert interviewed Trump??

because of FCC’s “equal time” rule — which requires broadcast networks to provide opposing political candidates equivalent airtime.

That would require them to give equal air time to the communist and green candidates, right?

Don't be silly. Only parties with corporate interests count.

That is covered in the article.

"That’s an astounding number for a video that has been up for less than 48 hours — and already puts it among the top political interviews that have ever been posted by “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” since its launch in 2015. It’s also easily the most-watched YouTube clip so far this year for “The Late Show” — and its most-watched Colbert clip since one in September, where the host celebrated the return of fellow host Jimmy Kimmel after his own battle with his parent network (ABC) and the FCC. "

Saved you a click.

expressão criada por Zeca Pagodinho no samba talarico ladrão de mulher

Yeah but it's 0M MAGA viewers.

MAGA voters are not as numerous as anyone thinks they are. The problem in our electoral system is the disproportionate gerrymandering and the number of disaffected independent voters who can't see the difference between Republicans and Democrats, mostly because there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats.

If it ain't got a ring on it.

Exactly. Crockett was kind of making a stink about not being invited as if it had anything to do with her. They don’t want to give equal time to pdf protecting fascists from the GOP

Democrats wouldn't have destroyed all these institutions, some of which area vital for a big number of humans to survive.

You know. Small difference.

I really hope they make a big deal about this interview surpassing Trump's. He'll be livid.

Because this is for a primary, and the guy is already red, the only opposing political candidate is some other red guy.
Not like a democrat can run in the republican primary.
It was a stupid position to take.
But now that CBS has been put on notice, they should plan their scheduling a bit more in advance around their programming.

They have literally helped Trump do everything he has done. And, mind you, Trump is actually competing with Obama in the number of deportations he has set out to commit.

Engaged people typically do have a ring.

7.89 million now haha.

If it's only got one ring on it.

Motherfuckers.

Yeah, he made the rounds during his first campaign.

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?

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.

The Colbert Bump always works.

effectively forcing them to adapt with better more expensive and difficult to implement policies and practices

It's the "Oops, Everything Is Facebook Now" Act. Squeezing out competition through threats of litigation.

I'm sure a few of them hate watched it.

Although, a big part of Talarico's appeal is his method of seizing on conservative tulpas and twisting them to progressive ends.

If Talarico has a shot at the general, it's going to be thanks to some number of MAGA voters buying into left populism. A bunch of the interview is just Talarico sayings he's Christian and asking WWJD about education, health care, and immigration.

MAGA voters are not as numerous as anyone thinks they are.

The way liberals phrase it, MAGA is everyone who doesn't vote straight ticket Dem after every election

What language?

A cock ring?

"Outdated" is pretty debatable. The fear is that once platforms are legally liable for user posted content it will lead to an environment of censorship. Anything the federal government (or indeed private entities) don't want talked about, they can simply tell social media companies to take down. Chances are the companies will comply because they don't want to deal with the potential consequences of litigation.

The fuck you mean "outdated"? That prevision is not a "social media" thing, it's a "any platform that hosts user generated content" thing.

It's the only thing that even allows user generated content in the first place. It would effectively break any forum and even hosted chat applications because it would make the platform liable for anything their users do that breaks the law.

But it also adds a bit of protection from BS lawsuits. Considering the current administration has already sued platforms because of users exercising their first amendment this provision insures they don't actually have a case.

And that's related to all the platforms based in the US are currently getting strong armed to turn over personal information for any users that criticizes ICE.

That is why they want to get rid of that provision. They want to censor people. They want to isolate people. It's why they forced the sale of TikTok so they could crack down on political news they didn't like while promoting propaganda.

They want to get rid of these easy avenues of communication and information for the average person.

Don't get me wrong. Facebook, twitter, and the like need to be regulated and broken up under antitrust, but getting rid of this provision is not going to do any of that. It's just going to make them crack down on people's freedom of speech even more while still allowing hate speech.

Edit: also, read what the EFF has to say: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech They're saying that legal liability would result in less moderation, which is counter-intuitive. While I agree, I still think that site operators will likely reach for the ban-hammer before relying on lawyers, especially if they don't have deep pockets.

FAck. They were floating this during Trump's first term too. I'm thankful it didn't get far from Barr's desk, but I knew it was always going to be in the crosshairs going forward.

I think the impact of this would be way bigger than people realize. Basically, it would kill if not cripple the Fediverse.

The problem is that without Section 230, site admins would need to aggressively censor and remove material that would get anyone in hot water. Anyone can come along and basically torpedo whatever forum site they want. The answer to that starts to look an awful lot like lots of AI, lots of paid site moderators, and eliminating anonymity to deter that kind of behavior. So, all this photo-id-age-validation going on out there? IMO, that's companies aligning themselves to cover their collective asses before this goes through. If a site operator is on the hook for finding stuff like CSAM, cooperating with the government by handing over the real identity of the perpetrator would go a long way to get them off your back.

Also, all of those things are very hard to do for small site operators. It all costs real money to accomplish at even a modest scale. While the loss of Section 230 would be a huge step towards furthering mass online surveillance, it also "pulls the ladder up", further entrenching large social media services and forums.

Oh damn now I'm confused, is he a good guy or a bad guy?