this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
885 points (99.7% liked)

politics

28416 readers
2434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 13 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network 3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 0 points 6 hours ago

I uploaded the PDF into Gemini 3 pro

The PDF itself was slow to obtain, the server took a long ass time to load the PDF.

Show AI Summary

Based on the document provided, this bill—officially named the "Sunset Section 230 Act" (S. 3546)—is designed to completely repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Here is exactly what the legislation does:

Total Repeal: It permanently removes Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) from federal law.

Delayed Implementation: The repeal is not immediate. The law includes a "sunset" delay, meaning the repeal will officially take effect exactly two years after the bill is enacted.

Conforming Amendments: The vast majority of the bill is legal housekeeping. Because Section 230 is referenced in many other federal laws, this bill goes through the U.S. Code—including the Trademark Act, the Controlled Substances Act, copyright law (Title 17), and criminal code (Title 18)—to strike out any cross-references to Section 230.

Definition Updates: It updates definitions in other laws that previously relied on Section 230. For example, it ensures that terms like "interactive computer service" and "Internet" are redefined or point to Section 223 of the Communications Act instead.

In short, it removes the foundational liability shield for internet platforms and gives a two-year runway for the change to take effect.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Motherfuckers.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago

7.89 million now haha.

[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 hours ago

The Colbert Bump always works.

[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 26 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

As a side note, "talarico" is a slang in my country for a man that sleeps with engaged women.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

What language?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If it ain't got a ring on it.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Engaged people typically do have a ring.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

If it's only got one ring on it.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

A cock ring?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 42 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

"Well, shit, that didn't work." - MAGA, again.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 32 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 17 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 29 points 18 hours ago

I've been thinking this was a prime candidate for the Streisand effect since I first heard about it. Good for him.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 11 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] 007ace@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 13 points 15 hours ago

Don't be silly. Only parties with corporate interests count.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Exactly. Crockett was kind of making a stink about not being invited as if it had anything to do with her. They don’t want to give equal time to pdf protecting fascists from the GOP

[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 47 points 20 hours ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 10 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Is 6 million views a lot for him? How does that compare to his other videos?

[–] adminofoz@lemmy.cafe 32 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah but it's 0M MAGA viewers.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'm sure a few of them hate watched it.

Although, a big part of Talarico's appeal is his method of seizing on conservative tulpas and twisting them to progressive ends.

If Talarico has a shot at the general, it's going to be thanks to some number of MAGA voters buying into left populism. A bunch of the interview is just Talarico sayings he's Christian and asking WWJD about education, health care, and immigration.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

MAGA voters are not as numerous as anyone thinks they are. The problem in our electoral system is the disproportionate gerrymandering and the number of disaffected independent voters who can't see the difference between Republicans and Democrats, mostly because there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats wouldn't have destroyed all these institutions, some of which area vital for a big number of humans to survive.

You know. Small difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

MAGA voters are not as numerous as anyone thinks they are.

The way liberals phrase it, MAGA is everyone who doesn't vote straight ticket Dem after every election

[–] riot@slrpnk.net 4 points 15 hours ago

That is covered in the article.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

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??

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

I really hope they make a big deal about this interview surpassing Trump's. He'll be livid.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, he made the rounds during his first campaign.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

TV super duper dead

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (27 children)

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.

load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›