Ah wait, yeah, I just looked it up and I take it back. I think I was getting it confused with a pizza chain I used to love, Anthony's Pizza.
Tbf the Governator was actually half decent.
Sometimes it's exactly what you want, though.
Pretty sure they’re trying to make “we need more control over the internet” into a national security issue
This is exactly it. Section 230 already has limitations, if a site fails to act when notified they lose the protections. However, the government have completely failed in their responsibility to actually enforce it. Instead, we get the classic "think of the children!!" bullshit while they try and rip away key parts of how the internet functions.
Yes I'm not sure why either. It could simply be that no one has brought forward a case, as legal action is expensive and complicated, which can be very daunting and off-putting. It could also be that a judge has ruled and thus established case law that says their Section 230 protection stands - in which case the government should amend the law to more clearly define where the limits are.
One of the final nails in the coffin for me was when I tried to specify the delivery date to a day I would actually be in, and they completely ignored the instruction and delivered immediately. Like, I pay for that option, and you're not delivering the service.
I've also been getting free trials for Prime every so often, so I still get the benefits when I might need them (eg before Christmas). They did make it very hard to cancel, though, half the links didn't work and the instructions were out of date and didn't match the pages.
They barely even need to alter Section 230. What they need to do is actually enforce it.
The protections Section 230 gives to websites are lost when the website fails to act. These websites have failed to act - as demonstrated by the people who gave their accounts of what happened at the start of the video. The websites can be sued, they can be penalised, but that isn't happening.
The government won't admit they also have responsibility for the failures here. Instead, they're turning this into an opportunity to repeal legislation that is essential to how the internet functions, all so that they can better control the narratives online.
Ffs, I didn't realise this was about the whole "repeal section 230, think of the children!!"
I used to work away a lot, an airbnb was always a considered option - even when my meals were paid for. Sometimes you want to have a place to chill at for the week, not just a room.
Saying that though I generally didn't use airbnb for this, booking.com often has holiday lets as well - or better yet go directly to the owner's website.
Donald Trump does not like to lose
You'd think he'd be used to it by now.
Make the headline, quietly retract.
I don't think that's really what this is. This sounds like an additional warning screen, on top of the warning screen you already get when you manually install apps from anything other than the Play Store. I expect you'll still get the same old warning screen even after you pass this screen the one time.
FYI, if you have root there is a Magisk module that gives FDroid the privilege to install apps without the popup.