Nashville bombing hot take

 There was a bombing in Nashville this morning. 

At this time, we don't know if the bomber was white, black, Latino, Muslim, atheist, or Christian. We don't know if they voted for Biden or Trump. I guarantee that there will be lots of conspiracy theories coming your way, very soon.

My personal hot take is that the bomber was an accelerationist. Accelerationists want to cause chaos so to accelerate the collapse of society. Some of them want to build their own racial or socialist utopia out of the ashes and rubble. Some of them might expect the Rapture to happen as a result of their actions.

They know that America can't be destroyed by one bomb or even a thousand bombs. What they are counting on is for Americans to turn on each other. They aren't satisfied with antifa and neo-nazis brawling in the streets. They want entire cities to burn.

In past years, you might sit down to Thanksgiving dinner with your racist uncle who likes to quote statistics he got from memes and your radical cousin who likes to quote Mao Tse-Tung. Blood is thicker than water and DNA is thicker than ideology, so you get though the turkey dinner.  Ten years from now, your uncle is still going to be racist but maybe he might make a few black friends. Your cousin will still be radical, but he'll hang up the Che shirt long enough to stay employed as a barista. And life will go on. 

This year, fewer of you had this kind of encounter thanks to both a pandemic and toxic electoral politics. Accelerationists might see this as an opportunity to keep life from going on. They are prepared to sacrifice not just your racist uncle and your moderate cousin, but your conservative dad, your progressive sister, and your moderate grandma as well. 

Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden were both accelerationists. Manson tried to trigger a race war by murdering a pregnant woman. Bin Laden tried to cause a global war between Christians and Muslims. Both men failed miserably. The Nashville bomber might be caught by the police, he might disappear, or he might already be dead. It is up to us all to see that he also fails.

Section 230

Donald Trump wants Section 230 repealed. He is threatening to veto the NDAA if he doesn't get his way on this. Maybe he's bluffing. In the past, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Cruz have talked about repealing or modifying Section 230 in the past.

What does Section 230 do? A lot of people seem to hate it without knowing what it is. Section 230 does two things that you should care about.

1. It protects Internet companies from getting sued over what users do. Since people break the law on the Internet all the time, this is important.

2. It allows Internet companies to moderate content. Companies like Facebook have the power to delete even this harmless post if it breaks their rules.

So let's say Grandpa Bubba gets an email from someone claiming to be the Nigerian Foreign Minister. Grandpa Bubba gets ripped off, and his caretaker Cousin Anna Mae is very mad. Since Anna Mae doesn't know who actually sent the email, she might try to sue Yahoo for letting a criminal use their email service. Section 230 protects Yahoo from Anna Mae and her lawyers. If it weren't for Section 230, Yahoo would have to be VERY picky about who gets to have an account.

So Anna Mae is having a bad week. So she writes DOWN WITH SCAMMERS on her bare chest and posts the picture to Facebook. Facebook takes down the picture and suspends her account. Anna Mae can argue that her picture was protected 1st Amendment speech (and it is.) She can argue that it isn't fair that men can post shirtless pics but women can't post topless pics (and it isn't fair.) Again, Section 230 protects Facebook from Anna Mae's elite legal team. Without Section 230, Facebook might become a hardcore porn site.

Sure, the Internet might seem like a big mess, but here you are reading what I typed because of Section 230. For better or for worse, Section 230 protects Twitter from getting sued over what Donald Trump tweets. Considering that Donald Trump is being sued for libel right now, I can't imagine that a corporation would let him have a social media account without some assurance that they won't be held responsible for what he says. You could probably convince people on the left to oppose Section 230 on the grounds that Trump would have never been allowed a Twitter account and probably would have never been elected President if Section 230 had not been passed in 1996.

But let's say for the sake of argument that the past 25 years were a huge mistake and we should give up email and social media. If we let Anna Mae sue Yahoo out of business for an email that a criminal sent, then that could set the precedent of suing Georgia-Pacific for making the paper that a kidnapper uses to make a ransom note. I might be oversimplifying things when I say this, but Section 230 like the Internet's 1st Amendment. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, all of that will be heavily restricted or go away completely without Section 230.