Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week, The GLoP-extended universe tackles all the important issues of the day: First, Jonah responds to Stephen Colbert’s lame and inaccurate attempt at humor. Then, Sarah Jeong keeps her job at the New York Times, Alex Jones is banished from (most) social media, a deep dive into Paul Manafort’s eclectic wardrobe, and we wrap up with a special GLoP investigation: is a hot dog a sandwich? Jonah says yes, others say no. Also, the idea of a museum dedicated to pizza is, er, cheesy, but where should it be located? And is that gooey stuff they sell in Chicago really even pizza? Listen and leave us your thoughts in the comments (keep it Kosher, please).
Subscribe to GLoP Culture in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I have zero sympathy for Jonah complaining about liberals not appreciating him for being a NeverTrumper.
Because endless complaining about some of the President’s behavior has zero to do with policy – a fact I suspect you knew, Umbra, and I suspect you only quoted my post to satisfy your urge to troll.
Donald Trump is administering the executive branch of the federal government more conservatively than any president since Reagan, and in some respects – e.g., deregulation, more conservatively than Reagan.
I was first. Long ago. Do you have any comments on policy?
You raised the question of the legal status of internet social networks. The relevant law is:
47 U.S. Code §230 – Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker — No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability — No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith 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 …
A couple of observations. The protection of (c)(2)(A) is ambiguous. “otherwise obectionable” could be argued to cover anything the SJWs regard as hate speech. OTOH, obscene is a word with a lot of legal interpretation.
My own take is that the social media companies are drifting towards full PC censorship. I think that Congress should rewrite the section so that the only kind of censorship that is shielded is things that have set legal meanings such as obscene, fraud, incitement. I would also require the SMCs to provide an independent , fast, and inexpensive appeal process that would require SMCs to explain their actions and require them to prove that the action was reasonable.
An aside: I would also like to see an anti-trust reorganization of the inductry. E.g. make Facebook spin off Instagram, and Google spinoff YouTube.
in first grade, when i took PB&J SANDWICHES to school in my Flintsones lunch box, Mom cut them in half.
on Saturdays when i ate lunch at grandma’s, the bacon swiss grilled cheese SANDWICH was cut in half.
the summer when I was 14 and worked in a un-airconditioned corrugated steel warehouse, the hero SANDWICH that I bought for lunch was cut in half.
know what I’ve never been served cut in half? a frankfurter, a hot dog, a wiener, a weinerwurst, a red hot, a link … not once, ever