Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

They won't lift a finger to actually do anything about online content unless it's infringing a copyright.

The only immediate red flag is the mention of "threats". Online threats, with rare exceptions, are empty. They're also very easy to fake, if not outright lie about.

I expect that if this actually goes anywhere, it will be quickly rendered completely useless by professional victims complaining that random nobodies called them mean names.

We don't know anything that's going to happen yet. He's not even in office either. The election STILL isn't over, and let's not jump to conclusions. Only time will tell.

I think it should be said that targeted harassment, death threats, and trying to instigate terrorist attacks aren't exactly what most people think of when they think Free Speech. There's a big difference between censoring anything that makes China look bad and going after political extremists and mass shootings.

Probably just the same shit they've been doing forever
hang wringing about "online threats" and ignoring obvious mass murderers in the making

The channers found out who was the last group tasked with addressing harassment, extremism, and online violence against women. It's quite an interesting group. All centered around the Qatar Foundation and Saudi British Bank. This looks like money laundering disguised as politics and policework.

Our algorithms from the Chingchongdingdong Centre for Glorious Class Struggle have identified you as a political extremist and potential mass shooter. Prepare to be defenestrated.

Firendly reminder that Trump promised to lock Hillary in jail too.

…so..? Still waiting on that one.

Wait until it's really bad.

The last six months have only reenforced the idea that a lot of people vote Joe in spite of his platform, his people and himself.