Segment itself was pretty banal. But watching the rightwing/ Chorus crowd coming in hard for Crockett is legit whiplash. And like, Crockett has always seemed… hollow? Or performative?
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.
This whole thing is giving strong Mamdani vibes, not in the nature of the candidates but the structure of the race, how corporate Dems and Republicans in the end came into alignment to try and stop them. I think capital is sensing its lost the ability to control the narrative around races like this.
But legit, watching crockett flameout while the chorus crowd glazes her has been wild.
I mean Talarico isn’t great and I still think flipping Texas is an op. Only thing Texas ever turns blue is peoples balls.
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:
Bruh I’m fucking dying laughing at this. You woke the house fam.
Indeed, one should never vote for a crock of shit, no matter how representative it appears on the surface. Deep inside, it’s full of shit and it will get all over everything.
deleted by creator
Could you give a one-liner on what Chorus is?
Its an astroturf movement being run by DNC dark money groups to normalize party lines.
Turns out the shitlibs were funded.
Of fuck, that rings a bell. I had forgotten abt it.
Yeah I think its bigger on tiktok, but I know at least Midas Touch and that clown Brian Tyler Cohen are mouthpieces which were specifically mentioned in the investigative journalism.
Whose beach shack is that?
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.
“Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous”
Streisand Effect in full force
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.
Link to the interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
As a side note, “talarico” is a slang in my country for a man that sleeps with engaged women.
If it ain’t got a ring on it.
Engaged people typically do have a ring.
If it’s only got one ring on it.
A cock ring?
expressão criada por Zeca Pagodinho no samba talarico ladrão de mulher
What language?
7.89 million now haha.
8.4 and climbing
Can you explain this for a non American?
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.
And i guess the 2.5M$ are campaign donations that came from a link attached to the youtube video?
Not really?
Here’s the interview.
People just went and donated on their own.
Edit: I just double checked the video is at 10 million views.
Strange, I wonder why it shows 7.5m views for me (5 hours after you saw 10m). I wonder if Youtube gives different view counts by region, which would be…interesting.
Maybe I fucked up and read subscribers? The mobile page had 10 mil where it looked like views just now, expanding the info says 7.4 mil.
Either way it’s a fuck ton more than the 2-3 mil they’d have had if they just aired it. (Gotta be honest it’s not Talarico’s best.)
You did. It’s 10.6 million subscribers, 7.5 million views.
Do I understand correctly that “equal time” in a primary would mean giving equal time to the Jasmine Crocket? Because honestly, I don’t really see the downside.
Im fact, I believe Colbert said he’s interviewed her twice already.
Laws like this only work if they are uniformly enforced.
The shell game is when the enforcement agency or parent company takes initiative during an election cycle versus when they choose not to. (top down enforcement) You can certainly complain from the bottom up and take it to court, but by the time it gets litigated the election is already over.
Technically, yes.
But, we’re doing the whole Nazis thing right now so it’s just a bullshit excuse.
But she’s already been on twice (and her response to all this was basically “well I don’t mind another go…”
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.
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.
Y’all keep an eye out for the Sunset Act. This aims to repeal Section 230, which would greatly aid in ensuring stuff like this doesn’t see the light of day.
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.
That’s what got me so worried about it.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s fair. I do apologize for my tone, but I’m queer and a core of all these attacks on free speech are directed at the LGBTQ community so I tend to get heated about it, especially if someone seems to dismiss the importance of protections like that.
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. 😁
I have ADHD (diagnosed) and also likely autism (undiagnosed), so I understand.
I ended up figuring out a specific way to write online because people seemed to intentionally assume the worst interpretation of what I said, usually adding meaning I didn’t.
Unfortunately, because the way I write is semi-formal I now regularly get accused of using or being “AI” I guess it’s because I “use words” and “know things”.
effectively forcing them to adapt with
bettermore expensive and difficult to implement policies and practicesIt’s the “Oops, Everything Is Facebook Now” Act. Squeezing out competition through threats of litigation.
I uploaded the PDF into Gemini 3 pro
The PDF itself was slow to obtain, the server took a long ass time to load the PDF.
Show AI Summary
Based on the document provided, this bill—officially named the “Sunset Section 230 Act” (S. 3546)—is designed to completely repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.
Here is exactly what the legislation does:
Total Repeal: It permanently removes Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) from federal law.
Delayed Implementation: The repeal is not immediate. The law includes a “sunset” delay, meaning the repeal will officially take effect exactly two years after the bill is enacted.
Conforming Amendments: The vast majority of the bill is legal housekeeping. Because Section 230 is referenced in many other federal laws, this bill goes through the U.S. Code—including the Trademark Act, the Controlled Substances Act, copyright law (Title 17), and criminal code (Title 18)—to strike out any cross-references to Section 230.
Definition Updates: It updates definitions in other laws that previously relied on Section 230. For example, it ensures that terms like “interactive computer service” and “Internet” are redefined or point to Section 223 of the Communications Act instead.
In short, it removes the foundational liability shield for internet platforms and gives a two-year runway for the change to take effect.
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.
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.
The effect in full force.
Is 6 million views a lot for him? How does that compare to his other videos?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That is covered in the article.
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.
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
Aka the skeeter effect
TV super duper dead
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??
I really hope they make a big deal about this interview surpassing Trump’s. He’ll be livid.
Holy shit, what a crap website with a totally excessive number of popups and far too much fluff in the content. Glad someone posted a link to the interview.
It’s fine on Firefox (with uBlock Origin). Also not full of fluff.
It’s not exactly a short article, but they don’t even mention key things such as who the politician is (nor context about the guy) whose interview wasn’t allowed to be aired. They seem to be censoring him just the same as the TV station…
