politics

I like Crockett for being a bit of a firecracker. She's smart, she knows the law, and knows the exact right spots to push on to point out the obvious corruption of the right. She seems incorruptible.

Talarico has a softer approach, isn't as combative, and leans on his faith a bit much I would say. I would say he probably plays better in Texas politics than Crockett might. He also seems incorruptible.

Two different personalities who are both qualified for what we need right now, but two different tools in a toolbox.

Crockett has always seemed.. hollow? Or performative?

Which is EXACTLY why she's been a darling of the DNC leadership.

Can't get caught up in actual POLICY matters! That way lies inconveniencing the owner donors!

Something about her reminds me of Buttigieg. Like they a suit you can just shove money and a campaign into and it will self animate and start giving speeches.

Spot on. See also:

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)

If it ain't got a ring on it.

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.

Motherfuckers.

hahaha it's already on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Streisand_effect_examples

love it

Adding an anecdote I quite literally never heard of Talarico before this debacle. But I sure as shit watched the full interview.

This administration never ceases to amaze me in its incompetence.

CBS got pressured by a regulatory agency (federal communications commission) to not air Talarico’s interview under some bullshit (radio and public tv broadcasts are supposed to give “equal airtime” during elections to political rivals to avoid the partisan bullshit we see with our media.)

Talarico is currently in a primary election for us senate in Texas (a primary is against other people in the same party, to decide who that parties nominee is)(his competitor, is Jasmine Crocket… who is an amazing woman, I’d be happy with either but I want Crocket.)

He’s also a pastor who’s been calling out Christian nationalism and advancing fairly progressive causes., and scaring the shit out of people that are of a Nazis persuasion.

So, CBS said they couldn’t air that segment.

So instead Colbert dumped it on YouTube.

The YT video has gotten 6.5 million views, which for perspective, they would have expected about 2 million if it aired.

So this is another example of censorship going wrong.

It is a California government coastal erosion photo that included Barbara Streisand's house. She sued to remove it from the internet because she believed it was an invasion of her privacy.

Adding to FuglyDuck's good explanation, there's another element. Not quite all broadcast (over-the-air, non-cable television, i.e. publicly accessible for free) TV follows this rule, as talk shows are co sidereal to be entertainment and are excluded. So the FCC threatened to remove the exemption for talk shows, meaning CBS wanted to play it safe and not risk the government making this a problem, even though it's not (currently) against the rules.

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

"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.

Not sure what this article says, but I read statistics show most Colbert shows get about 2.5mil views when initially aired.

Even his most viewed, like with Taylor Swift tend to be pretty low.

They do get streamed online after, and copied and shared in ways that likely are not tracked officially.

This video almost immediately matched those aired show views, and continues to climb.

It's at 8.4mil currently.