[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I understand the natural partisan push can be difficult to fight for some, but the arguments attempted for this law are mind bogglingly Bizzarro Jerry like and make absolutely no sense.

I don’t think you understand jack #### about a “natural partisan push” beyond your desire to fall back on that rhetorical crap any time you don’t want to actually respond directly to what someone posted. It’s like clockwork with you.

Step back a sec to understand what you are trying to say, what you actually want, understand what is being discussed and try to look at it without the perspective of "how do I defend this at all cost"

I made no statement defending the legislation, I just said that theoretically there could be a benefit to this consequence of it. Whether that consequence was intended or not. Would that benefit outweigh the cons to it? I don’t know, and I’d lean towards probably not but that has absolutely nothing do with being partisan no matter how desperately you try to make that link.

If you want to lecture people you should probably try knowing what you’re actually talking about in the first place instead of resorting to making stuff up.

Right now you are both trying to argue in a twisted way that less access to legitimate news via social media is good. Think about it for a second.

You realize that there are people who don’t use social media at all and that all of the news you’re worried about no longer having direct access to between photos of what your relative had for lunch and staged prank videos is still available on the same internet you would be accessing your social media accounts?