Why isn't Big Tech afraid of a future Republican government regulating them to hell and back?

Used to be that way, before primaries became institutionalized. A party's candidate was selected in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention. Then the big wigs from the smoke room told the conventioneers who to vote for, and that was that.. Now, if a candidate can get the votes from a state's primary those state delegates must cast their convention vote for the candidate that won the primary election, and the voters can cast ballots for whomever they damn well please..

 

OK, considering he had a winning number of delegates, I don't know how you do that.

 

Well it wouldn't have been against the law would it?

 

So Trump can run as a Republican in 2024 whether the RNC wants him or not?

 

Yeah, but Bernie Sanders was wanted by the party. Surely if someone wasn't wanted AND they weren't a registered member, they would not be able to run as candidate for that party. The whole thing would be utterly FARCIAL, and frankly it's farcical already, with someone running as a candidate for a party which doesn't endorse them, even if they are a registered member of the party.

 

That's government FORCED moderation isn't it?

 

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

I agree with all of this, but my understanding is that the First Amendment means that the government will not make a law which infringes upon the right to free speech or free exercise of religion. I don't see how this applies to a private company.

 

Well, it is politics. AFAIK a party can nominate anybody they want; doesn't have to be a party member or registered in a party, or even registered. They can nominate anyone who meets the requirements in the Constitution which are simply age, citizenship, and time in residence -- doesn't explicitly say anything about being human but I suppose that would be problematic .

 

Absolutely.

 

It is, sorta. DRM rules require blocking sites that are identified as providing copyrighted material. The onus is on copyright holders to identify purveyors.

 

I'm just not getting what point you are trying to make.

 

They can steal an election on film and 'Republicans' don't do anything about it. 'Republicans' are done. They've run up the white flag and are awaiting capture.

 

What should they have done exactly?

 

Just that if the Republicans REALLY didn't want Trump, then they surely would have gone against all election primary norms, and somehow made sure that he didn't become the nominee in 2016.

 

So then surely it can be said that ISP's don't do the type of content moderation which relates to Section 230, so Section 230 doesn't apply to them.

 

Do you think that he will?

 

Yeah, but surely if someone wasn't wanted AND they were not a registered member, they would not be able to run as candidate for that party.

 

Refused to certify votes that were not verifiably legitimate and/or came from precincts that violated election laws.

 

As in the Senate?

 

That is anybody's guess.

 

Sure they can. They simply file to be a candidate in a primary election, although there might be some state law restrictions.

 

That's not the Senate's job is it?

 

Matt Walsh agrees that Republicans are useless, but he advises to forget about them, and encourages conservatives to focus on the culture:

 

As written, no.

 

There hasn't been a challenge like that in modern times so they didn't know what to do.