7.89 million now haha.
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
890 points (99.7% liked)
politics
28419 readers
2375 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Motherfuckers.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Colbert Bump always works.
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?
What language?
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Well, shit, that didn't work." - MAGA, again.
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)
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.
I've been thinking this was a prime candidate for the Streisand effect since I first heard about it. Good for him.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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 denies Isreals war crimes so for many that's a non-starter. Though neither are perfect, I believe Talarico has committed to stopping offensive weapons transfers. I think he is marginally more progressive.
However both but especially crockett are still kinda mainstream Dems, Crockett does have the benefit of being on the house oversight committee and had good questioning to Pam bondi. She has a lot of the smoke, but her policies are same old same old.
load more comments
(17 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Yeah, he made the rounds during his first campaign.
Streisand Effect in full force
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
TV super duper dead
view more: next ›