>>/4984/
Senate hate speech hearing post 4:

 1:30, maybe b4 at little
Rep Jackie Rosen (D) talking about "online hate communities" and how they enable people to share hate speech online. (i wonder what kind of communities she might be thinking of)

Mentions Las Vegas shooting, even tho it doesn't have anything to do with online hate communities.....

Very hard for me to listen to these guys--all of them--humbly virtue signaling when we know they lie like rugs. Dems of course particularly interested in gun control & censorship; Repubs try to broaden the discussion and diffuse these attempts.

Mike Lee (R) brings up section 230 about publishing vs platforming. Does 230 help them take down porn, etc.? Is section 230 helpful? 
All the them want to retain 230 

[of course they do--they don't want the legal liability. But they also want to censor conservatives. Nobody asks about that]. 

Temmy Baldwin (D) brings up "gun violence" and universal background check idea--saying it has an "extraordinary" amt of support. She talks to ADL guy. He wants more prosecution of hate crime laws. Discussion of hate crime laws & ability to block those convicted of even misdemeanor hate crimes from buying guns. (I think that's right, it goes by fast)

[Thought: Why is only the ADL here? WHERE IS CANDACE OWENS WHEN WE NEED HER?] 

Chair Dan Sullivan:
Talks about the problem of disaffected young males and how it can be addressed. Various people respond but Selim's comments are the most chilling:

Selim: Domestic training camps aren't physical; instead, they are online. They consist of online communities; wants to make them inhospitable 
He's talking about the CHANS here, folks, please take note

Ted Cruz (R): Does not ask anything about hate speech--instead, wants to know about Project Dragonfly, haha! Google rep says they're not doing it anymore. Looks very serious, kek. 
Then shifts to talk of "extremism"--points out that this is often a sheild for advancing political censorship. Addresses takedown of McConnell's twitter acct, which he finds troubling. Refs to threats of violence against McConnell. Twitter guy is so glad to be asked (he claims). They removed it "out of an abundance of caution." Later, reversed it blah de blah de blah. [pile of crap imo....good for you, Ted Cruz!] Claims there was nothing ideological about it.

Wicker isn't buying it. Picks up on this topic and asks whether they've changed their policy at all? Seems unconvinced by Twitter's defense....Pickles mentions manifestos at this point and why they don't let people talk about them even when it is to condemn them (don't know what this has to do with McConnell, may be a distraction technique).

Sullivan finishes by observing that social media companies like Google  often seem more willing to work with foreign countries (China) than with the US govt. Asks why. [Bullshitty answer.]
Wicker also asks Twitter guy about Maduro's acct again (he'd earlier said that Maduro's acct is still active bc he hasn't broken any of Twitter's rules!) [more BS] Says Twitter just looks at what's happening online not off [Is that right? Seems like they look offline for some people....more digging needed]
Hearing concludes about 2:10.

 * * *
This acct is far from complete, trying to do 3 things at once. Sorry the beginning is scrambled, i was trying to get the word out on other platforms. May be able to post the whole hearing here, will try after it's over.