RetroFed
Stephen Colbert’s unaired James Talarico interview hits 6.4 million YouTube views and results in $2.5 million raised for Talarico’s campaign in 24 hours
submitted by
MicroWavehttps://variety.com/2026/tv/news/stephen-colbert-james-talarico-interview-youtube-views-1236666068/
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsAppANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
“Well, shit, that didn’t work.” - MAGA, again.
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)
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.
I’ve been thinking this was a prime candidate for the Streisand effect since I first heard about it. Good for him.
As a side note, “talarico” is a slang in my country for a man that sleeps with engaged women.
If it ain’t got a ring on it.
Engaged people typically do have a ring.
If it’s only got one ring on it.
A cock ring?
What language?
Oh damn now I’m confused, is he a good guy or a bad guy?
expressão criada por Zeca Pagodinho no samba talarico ladrão de mulher
7.89 million now haha.
8.4 and climbing
Deleted by moderator
Edit: also, read what the EFF has to say: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech They’re saying that legal liability would result in less moderation, which is counter-intuitive. While I agree, I still think that site operators will likely reach for the ban-hammer before relying on lawyers, especially if they don’t have deep pockets.
FAck. They were floating this during Trump’s first term too. I’m thankful it didn’t get far from Barr’s desk, but I knew it was always going to be in the crosshairs going forward.
I think the impact of this would be way bigger than people realize. Basically, it would kill if not cripple the Fediverse.
The problem is that without Section 230, site admins would need to aggressively censor and remove material that would get anyone in hot water. Anyone can come along and basically torpedo whatever forum site they want. The answer to that starts to look an awful lot like lots of AI, lots of paid site moderators, and eliminating anonymity to deter that kind of behavior. So, all this photo-id-age-validation going on out there? IMO, that’s companies aligning themselves to cover their collective asses before this goes through. If a site operator is on the hook for finding stuff like CSAM, cooperating with the government by handing over the real identity of the perpetrator would go a long way to get them off your back.
Also, all of those things are very hard to do for small site operators. It all costs real money to accomplish at even a modest scale. While the loss of Section 230 would be a huge step towards furthering mass online surveillance, it also “pulls the ladder up”, further entrenching large social media services and forums.
Motherfuckers.
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?
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…
… 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.
“Outdated” is pretty debatable. The fear is that once platforms are legally liable for user posted content it will lead to an environment of censorship. Anything the federal government (or indeed private entities) don’t want talked about, they can simply tell social media companies to take down. Chances are the companies will comply because they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of litigation.
This is why I asked if anyone could clarify for me. Thank you for explaining in a more natural manor, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me.
With your clarification, it definitely seems to me like the protections in place should stay there. Maybe there are issues with some of these companies, but I don’t think removing these particular protections will change the issues I see, just stifle open speech.
The fuck you mean “outdated”? That prevision is not a “social media” thing, it’s a “any platform that hosts user generated content” thing.
It’s the only thing that even allows user generated content in the first place. It would effectively break any forum and even hosted chat applications because it would make the platform liable for anything their users do that breaks the law.
But it also adds a bit of protection from BS lawsuits. Considering the current administration has already sued platforms because of users exercising their first amendment this provision insures they don’t actually have a case.
And that’s related to all the platforms based in the US are currently getting strong armed to turn over personal information for any users that criticizes ICE.
That is why they want to get rid of that provision. They want to censor people. They want to isolate people. It’s why they forced the sale of TikTok so they could crack down on political news they didn’t like while promoting propaganda.
They want to get rid of these easy avenues of communication and information for the average person.
Don’t get me wrong. Facebook, twitter, and the like need to be regulated and broken up under antitrust, but getting rid of this provision is not going to do any of that. It’s just going to make them crack down on people’s freedom of speech even more while still allowing hate speech.
This is exactly why I asked if anyone could clarify for me, I didn’t understand what was really being put on the political table here. Thank you for elucidating, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me. I understand that’s often done purposely by the people submitting such legislation, so I usually have to find someone who can understand it better then I can.
That’s fair. I do apologize for my tone, but I’m queer and a core of all these attacks on free speech are directed at the LGBTQ community so I tend to get heated about it, especially if someone seems to dismiss the importance of protections like that.
I understand. I’m ND so it’s hard for me to pickup social cues as it is, text makes it especially hard to figure out emotion or intention at times.
Thank you again for helping me understand a little better. 😁
It’s the “Oops, Everything Is Facebook Now” Act. Squeezing out competition through threats of litigation.
Whose beach shack is that?
It’s Barbara Streisand’s.
Shy of those houses being there, what’s so bad about the sea reshaping the shoreline? Hasn’t that been going on for quite some time already, like, a few hundred million years or so?
Things humans have done, like damming rivers, have accelerated and altered coastal erosion patterns to a huge degree.
It’s a natural phenomenon but AFAIK it can be accentuated or accelerated by the rise of the sea level, or the passage of boats and vessels. It can be entirely normal, but it can also be provoked or worsened by other factors. And that’s why we document and do some research about it?!
I’m not a climate scientist but luckily the Wikipedia’s article on the Streisand effect has a link to coastal erosion if you want to know more.
That makes sense. We want to understand our impact on the environment. I guess I was just wondering why it seemed like an inherent problem, but I suppose it’s more a question of whether we’re disturbing the natural process in ways that ultimately cause undue detriment to the ecosystem.
“Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous”
That would require them to give equal air time to the communist and green candidates, right?
Don’t be silly. Only parties with corporate interests count.
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.
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
Is 6 million views a lot for him? How does that compare to his other videos?
Saved you a click.
Yeah but it’s 0M MAGA viewers.
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.
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.
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.
They have literally helped Trump do everything he has done. And, mind you, Trump is actually competing with Obama in the number of deportations he has set out to commit.
The way liberals phrase it, MAGA is everyone who doesn’t vote straight ticket Dem after every election
That is covered in the article.
Not sure what this article says, but I read statistics show most Colbert shows get about 2.5mil views when initially aired.
Even his most viewed, like with Taylor Swift tend to be pretty low.
They do get streamed online after, and copied and shared in ways that likely are not tracked officially.
This video almost immediately matched those aired show views, and continues to climb.
It’s at 8.4mil currently.
Wait. Colbert interviewed Trump??
I really hope they make a big deal about this interview surpassing Trump’s. He’ll be livid.
Yeah, he made the rounds during his first campaign.
TV super duper dead
The Colbert Bump always works.
props to Colbert, btw, for all his faults, he did do whatever he could to expose the capitulators. he could have gone the safe route and not said anything.
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
Aka the skeeter effect
Anyone got a link to the video that’s not on YouTube
No, we want the view count there to go up.
It sends an important message about censorship.
If you hate ads, and you see them there, use an ad blocker or alternative YouTube app like Revanced.
YouTube doesn’t load for people who use hardened browsers for years.
We literally can’t view it.