# Battle for Section 230



## Null (May 30, 2020)

The Law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (short, plain english)
The Executive Order: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (short, plain english)
My explanation, Additional information from the EFF.


Here are competing visions for changing Section 230, what is possibly the most important piece of legislation ever passed regarding the Internet.


*President Donald Trump*





Trump's "hard pitch" is full revocation of Section 230. This would mean all platforms are civilly liable for every single thing posted on them. Every site from Facebook, to Twitter, to 4chan, to the Kiwi Farms would shutter overnight or begin a sort of censorship and whitelisting you can't even imagine.


*Former Vice President Joe Biden*
>In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, former Vice President Joe Biden called for tech’s biggest liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to be “revoked, immediately.”

Same as Trump.


*Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)
S.1914 - Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act*
Companies do not get Section 230(c) immunity unless they receive a certificate from the FTC certifying they do not moderate a specific political agenda, party, or politician. Hawley's bill only applies to companies with more than 30m American users, or 300m Global users, or $500m annual income.

Hawley's bill has no conspors, and in fact he cosponsors a much worse bill.


*Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
S.3398 - EARN IT Act of 2020*
Establishes a new committee horrifically titled "National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention". In plain English, any bill having anything to do with protecting kids is actually designed to fuck you. This committee is loaded with 19 people (retard boomers) from and delegated by various members of the government.

This committee sets forth best practices. They can make anything a best practice (i.e. don't use https://, record user IPs forever, require a real name in the back end). If you don't do what they ask, you can be sued. It doesn't state its intents outright, it shrouds them by establishing this committee.


*Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL-1)*
Matt Gaetz (my congressman) has expressed interest in changing Section 230 and has vocally shown support for Hawley's law but is not currently a cosponsor. He has not given specifics on what he'd want to change.

In his podcast _Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz_, he has said he has filed complaints with the FEC regarding the platforms manipulating the elections. He likened the "characterizations of Trump's tweets" with political billboards and said they should be regulated similarly.


*Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI-02) and Paul Gossar (R, AZ-04)*
Their plan is to add carve outs to Section 230 which will impact services using user data without their explicit consent. This will likely cause no problems and instead just add yet a-fucking-nother swarm of GDPR-style notices and confirmation pop-ups.



			https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8515/all-info
		



			https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gosar_275_xml.pdf
		



*My Plan for the Banks*
All they have to do to fix online censorship is fix payment networks. No "non-kosher" alternatives to Twitter or Facebook can exist when monetization is not possible. The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does.

This process is two fold:
1. Change parts of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act so banks are less liable for illegal activity done by Americans and their businesses, and
2. regulate the payment networks (MC, Visa, Amex, Diner's) so that they cannot kick Americans off their networks or blacklist them without actual fraud or court orders.

That's all it would take to wake up in a better world, but it will never happen. They'd shoot Matt Gaetz in the fucking head if he proposed something like this


*Alternative for Regulating Platforms*
If you want to make Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube liable for banning and censoring people, the Government should just create recourse for people wrongfully terminated from major platforms. Let people banned from AdSense / YouTube / Twitter / Facebook sue for some sort of damage in civil court.

What revoking Section 230 does is unfair. Imagine if Starbucks didn't let black people buy coffee at their store, so instead of just making it so they can be sued for that, the Government decided to regulate all food and drink venues in the United States as hospitals to spite them. That is the sort of logical non sequitur this move is.


----------



## Arm Pit Cream (May 30, 2020)

Murder them all and it could fix everything. Politcians hate the internet because it magnifies their flaws.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (May 30, 2020)

Hawley's bill sounds like the best solution but it will never happen.


----------



## Lone MacReady (May 30, 2020)

Arm Pit Cream said:


> Murder them all and it could fix everything. Politcians hate the internet because it magnifies their flaws.


The internet allows for the exposure of corruption and has led to egg being put on many a gubmint tool. No one likes being outed as a paper tiger, incompetent, or outright malicious actor in front of those they want to hoodwink.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 30, 2020)

The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?


Gotta wait and see what gets introduced. I'm most concerned with EARN IT progressing.


----------



## Tikbalang (May 30, 2020)

If KF is a tv show, I don't want this to be its season finale


----------



## Solid Hyrax (May 30, 2020)

And the most horrible thing is, there's no backlash to this, because this is all under the pretense of protecting free speech, when it does the complete opposite


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 30, 2020)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Hawley's bill sounds like the best solution but it will never happen.


No, I would much prefer to maintain the status quo to be honest. You know what happens to websites that censor the shit out of their users? They decline and become irrelevant.


----------



## Changeofheart (May 30, 2020)

We are getting confirmation of this change on monday, if i got this right?


----------



## murgatroid (May 30, 2020)

"Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship"
"National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention"
As cliched as it's become to reference 1984, these are clearly doublespeak.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 30, 2020)

@Null how about putting this thread at the top with the other links regarding the situation?


----------



## TV's Adam West (May 30, 2020)

Just give me some good news this one time.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

Ryotaro Dojima said:


> Just give me some good news this one time.


It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.


Why don't you contact your representatives (or some "sufficiently good/powerful" nonprofit) to fight against the banks? I'm sure enough representatives/nonprofits will be able to endure against the banks.

Also glad to see you've calmed down a lot now.



> Matt Gaetz is my congressman and someone I've met in person. He's even retweeted me, oh jeez.


Was meeting him a nice experience or no?


----------



## Celebrate Nite (May 30, 2020)

Nice plan you got there Null.  I did my part by editing out the "naughty language" and sent it to The White House from the link @Iwasamwillbe linked in the last trump twitter thread.


----------



## Kaede Did Nothing Wrong (May 30, 2020)

>Trump and Biden have the same policy
man I love voting


----------



## אΩ+1 (May 30, 2020)

Providing that section 230 is repealed, the worst thing about it being repealed to every US Citizen in any country that the United States or has an extradition treaty to the United States.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Which means eg. that the user of kiwifarms can as the publisher of the Christchurch shooting.


----------



## Otis Boi (May 30, 2020)

Honestly I'm more scared of the EARN It act then anything else. I know nothing good can come from it. If it every gets passed I'm pretty much done with the internet. I can't believe Twitter couldn't keep its foot out of its mouth for more the a few minutes.

Christ what a shit year this has been


----------



## rinya (May 30, 2020)

Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:


> >Trump and Biden have the same policy
> man I love voting


In the previous episode: Earn It Bill, sponsored by one of the richest senators, coincidentally a democrat, and a homosexual republican. Man, it sure must feel good to have a two-party system.


----------



## Fuck Y'all (May 30, 2020)

Honestly, Trump is not playing with fire

He's playing with fucking "NUKE THE NET" button


----------



## TV's Adam West (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.


And we all know how that ended.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

Fuck Y'all said:


> Honestly, Trump is not playing with fire
> 
> He's playing with fucking "NUKE THE NET" button


Everyone's been playing with it for a while now. It's just that he's the only one who decided that everyone should pay for this retarded bitch fit between him and twitter.

If this goes through, I fear for what this could spell for other countries. Because the way things happen, anything that occurs in the US with the internet always ends up finding its way to other countries somehow.


----------



## 2021Murder (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.


and we all know who runs the banks.



rinya said:


> In the previous episode: Earn It Bill, sponsored by one of the richest senators, coincidentally a democrat, and a homosexual republican. Man, it sure must feel good to have a two-party system.


we could have a ten party system like france, it doesn't matter if it suddenly becomes a one-party system when it comes to the JQ, or blacks


----------



## cjöcker (May 30, 2020)

We're all fucked if he does this, this is the end. Why did we give him power in the first place?


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

cjöcker said:


> We're all fucked if he does this, this is the end. Why did we give him power in the first place?


Because /pol/ memed him into the presidental run and we all just rolled with it because Hillary was the horrible choice of the two.

I really fucking hope they realize what they've done.


----------



## cjöcker (May 30, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Because /pol/ memed him into the presidental run and we all just rolled with it because Hillary was the horrible choice of the two.
> 
> I really fucking hope they realize what they've done.


Why the fuck was he the only other option? Couldn't have we gotten an actual competent person and not a fucking reality tv star?


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

cjöcker said:


> Why the fuck was he the only other option? Couldn't have we gotten an actual competent person and not a fucking reality tv star?


Fuck if I know. You really expect me to know what goes on in the mind of some exceptionally idiotic conspiritards and politictards?


----------



## NyQuilninja (May 30, 2020)

My fellow kiwis, we had a good  run and shared many memories. We had a chance to  laugh at some of the best autism and most disturbing  humanity has had to offer. Now I guess the time to say goodbye draws nigh.


----------



## Dyn (May 30, 2020)

Bet you all wish you voted for Bernie now. Sorry, no refunds.


----------



## HOMO FOR LIFE (May 30, 2020)

This would mean shitposting will end forever and trump is not gonna let that happen.

Honestly trust the plans niggers. Trump is our boi.


----------



## The Ghost Of George Floyd (May 30, 2020)

HOMO FOR LIFE said:


> This would mean shitposting will end forever and trump is not gonna let that happen.
> 
> Honestly trust the plans niggers. Trump is our boi.


Put the rope around your neck and kick the chair.


----------



## whatever I feel like (May 30, 2020)

HOMO FOR LIFE said:


> This would mean shitposting will end forever and trump is not gonna let that happen.
> 
> Honestly trust the plans niggers. Trump is our boi.


Trump's plans don't extend beyond "how do I get out of this room five minutes from now without looking like I lost."


----------



## Pepito The Cat (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.



Ok, I get the banks wield a huge amount of political power but how does having less investors benefit them? If they have to police every transaction thanks to the US Patriot Act, they're missing a lot of micro-transactions form smaller investors because of the restrictions, not counting the resources needed to screen every single one of them. My point is, how is in the bank's best interest to _deny _access to credit? Isn't it the other way around?


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

HOMO FOR LIFE said:


> This would mean shitposting will end forever and trump is not gonna let that happen.
> 
> Honestly trust the plans niggers. Trump is our boi.


Dude, he's literally crying over some twitter posts getting censored. He's been shown to be irrational, so who knows what he'll end up doing.

And if he does decide to get 230 repealed, it's obvious that no one, except the outright most deluded of Trumptards, would want to vote him back in. But like I said, who knows? Could be just Trump thowing a hissyfit like always and he'll soon turn his attention to some other event, could be him actually being serious and him being as much of a boomer as the rest of the US politicians.

Either way, your post is dumb and you should be ashamed.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

Pepito said:


> how does having less investors benefit them


Pretend for a second you are a multi-trillion dollar corporation that controls the flow of capital in almost every country. The countries you don't do business with (Russia, China, Iran, and the DPRK) are under intense international sanctions. More than the amount of money you have, is the power and influence you wield over the flow of money. You can turn off entire companies like a spigot and no one has any authority to challenge you. You maintain secret blacklists which you share with your 'competition' (MasterCard, Visa, Amex, Diner's all use the same terminated mechant files).

What do you need 3% of $40,000/yr for? What do you need 3% of $40m/yr for? You don't. That money is literally worthless to you, and in many times is in direct opposition to your interests.  If a website can operate on $40,000/yr but promotes ideas against your interests, then it does far in excess of $1200/yr worth of damage.

This is the beating heart of the 'conspiracy'.


----------



## Large (May 30, 2020)

Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:


> >Trump and Biden have the same policy
> man I love voting


Vote Ted K.


----------



## Superman93 (May 30, 2020)

YOU SHOULDVE DONE IT


----------



## Puff (May 30, 2020)

Actually doing something instead of freaking out. I like it. Already wrote to everyone I know to write to, but I'll send this on to some people. My senators at least.


----------



## HOMO FOR LIFE (May 30, 2020)

whatever I feel like said:


> Trump's plans don't extend beyond "how do I get out of this room five minutes from now without looking like I lost."


Trump is the smartest president to sit in the office since Eisenhower. I don't know where you get this thing from.


----------



## Puff (May 30, 2020)

Oh look, there are already BOTH "Orange man bad" and "Orange man good" replies. I can tell this is going to be a valuable and high level discussion.


----------



## Schlomo Silverscreenblatt (May 30, 2020)

Trump has the money and he could get people to make a twitter alternative (gab is dog shit) for him and the 40 year old qanons and patriots to muck about on. Please just do that instead cheeto crust man.


----------



## DNA_JACKED (May 30, 2020)

I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.

Both EARN IT and the alternatives would still give government power over these companies to hold them responsible, which still implies the above. Even if facebook followed along the "best practices" narrative, for instance, all it would take is one politician deciding to pick a bone with facebook on that board and Ol' Zucky would be in for a world of hurt.

Under the 230A protections, big internet companies can hide behind the shield of their token efforts. Replacing those efforts would be monumentally expensive, and they will fight these changes tooth and nail.

If they dont, well, it will likely be the end of the internet as we know it. Only megacorps with political power would survive, and then only by posting the most banal content. Normies would bore of it eventually, and the tech savvy would regress back to the era of BBS, where sites are hosted on individual computers or spread through torrent-style networks that are fly-by-night, disappearing at the first sign of legal threat.

EDIT: I'm sure someone will point out that the same lobby groups could buy out the 19 person EARN IT board. They could, but can you imagine the Facebook lobby-bought puppets trying to constantly fuck over the Google lobby-bought puppets? Or if Fox media grabbed a portion ofthe board and tried to use it to legislate facebook out of existence? This would be a recipe for political infighting, and that would still slow the giants to a crawl and open these companies up to lawsuits from any multitude of offended groups.


----------



## PowerWomon (May 30, 2020)

DNA_JACKED said:


> I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.
> 
> Both EARN IT and the alternatives would still give government power over these companies to hold them responsible, which still implies the above. Even if facebook followed along the "best practices" narrative, for instance, all it would take is one politician deciding to pick a bone with facebook on that board and Ol' Zucky would be in for a world of hurt.
> 
> ...


How does Europe manage? Don't they already have very similar laws?


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

PowerWomon said:


> How does Europe manage?


By hosting in the United States or staying so small they don't get noticed, or by not causing problems in their jurisdiction. Forums out of Europe get seized and shuttered constantly.


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

PowerWomon said:


> How does Europe manage? Don't they already have very similar laws?



There is a reason why 1984 was made by an English dude.

Keep your head down and don't piss of Big Brother is a very real thing.


----------



## Terrorist (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.



JOSHUA MOON is NAZBOL


----------



## mindlessobserver (May 30, 2020)

I am honestly not optimistic. Everyone in DC knows something needs to be done about Big Tech, but they can't agree on what. Which means they will need to compromise, and the very first thing Congress compromises on is the citizens individual interests.


----------



## I can't imagine (May 30, 2020)

mindlessobserver said:


> I am honestly not optimistic. Everyone in DC knows something needs to be done about Big Tech, but they can't agree on what. Which means they will need to compromise, and the very first thing Congress compromises on is the citizens individual interests.



Ultimately, whatever winds up happening, I very much doubt maximizing free speech is going to be the priority of either party.  Which is...troubling, to say the least.


----------



## Piga Dgrifm (May 30, 2020)

Where is Trump going to throw tantrums like this if he kills Twitter though?


----------



## Sperghetti (May 30, 2020)

Solid Hyrax said:


> And the most horrible thing is, there's no backlash to this, because this is all under the pretense of protecting free speech, when it does the complete opposite



Exactly. I think people need to realize that without Section 230, the internet would lose the main reason it became such a popular and widespread form of entertainment media in the first place: User-created content. Do television and radio let Joe Sixpack from East Bumblefuck, Iowa show off something he made so people halfway across the world can enjoy it? No, but the internet does.

Without Section 230, letting users contribute their own content would simply be to much of a liability. The internet would just become Television 2.0, with all the content created by a handful of mega-corporations with teams of lawyers at their disposal.


----------



## Sexy Senior Citizen (May 30, 2020)

DNA_JACKED said:


> I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.
> 
> Both EARN IT and the alternatives would still give government power over these companies to hold them responsible, which still implies the above. Even if facebook followed along the "best practices" narrative, for instance, all it would take is one politician deciding to pick a bone with facebook on that board and Ol' Zucky would be in for a world of hurt.
> 
> ...


I concur. At this point, I think Jack has Trump over a barrel, and Trump knows it, which is why he's engaging in a little saber-rattling. If Trump gets what he wants and repeals 230, Jack can go "So we're a publisher, which means we decide which views to host!" and initiate a digital purge of Twitter users to the right of Marx.  If Trump loses, it's back to the status quo.
At the same time, I'm kinda rooting for Trump to get his revenge without jeopardizing free speech. After everything it's done, Twitter richly deserves to have its chickens come home to roost.


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> The internet would just become Television 2.0, with all the content created by a handful of mega-corporations with teams of lawyers at their disposal.



It’s becoming that anyways. If it has not already been that for a decade.


----------



## DNA_JACKED (May 30, 2020)

Sexy Senior Citizen said:


> I concur. At this point, I think Jack has Trump over a barrel, and Trump knows it, which is why he's engaging in a little saber-rattling. If Trump gets what he wants and repeals 230, Jack can go "So we're a publisher, which means we decide which views to host!" and initiate a digital purge of Twitter users to the right of Marx.  If Trump loses, it's back to the status quo.
> At the same time, I'm kinda rooting for Trump to get his revenge without jeopardizing free speech. After everything it's done, Twitter richly deserves to have its chickens come home to roost.


Trump wont get anything. We've seen the bills being made in response to this, and they would fuck up everything. Even the best one is absolute trash. 

The problem with saber rattling is eventually you'll need to back up that saber. That rarely goes well. 


6MillionBicycles said:


> It’s becoming that anyways. If it has not already been that for a decade.


An organically changing internet may have been progressing towards this, but that gave time for the internet to adapt. Look at all Null has done over the years to keep Kiwifarms up and running. If he had been hit with all those challenges at once back when Kiwifarms was in its infancy, would this site have survived? 

Under the new laws, anything that isnt a google, facebook, twitter, ece sanctioned site would disappear. No more 4chan, no more kiwifarms, no more comments on websites that go against whatever narrative those sites push.


----------



## cantankerous jackalope (May 30, 2020)

ORANGE MAN.... NEUTRAL?


----------



## Boobie Bomb (May 30, 2020)

cantankerous jackalope said:


> ORANGE MAN.... NEUTRAL?


Dragon Ball Z ain't got nothing on this. Now we wait until Trump fixes internet history by fucking over Twitter.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

6MillionBicycles said:


> It’s becoming that anyways. If it has not already been that for a decade.


Primarily because of the manipulation over currency. Force the payment networks to do business with every legitimate company, win it all back.


----------



## KiwiJoe (May 30, 2020)

Please. @Null don't die on me.  I kinda gotten really attatched to this community despite being here for a few months (although I've lurked here for a long time already.).


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

DNA_JACKED said:


> An organically changing internet may have been progressing towards this, but that gave time for the internet to adapt. Look at all Null has done over the years to keep Kiwifarms up and running. If he had been hit with all those challenges at once back when Kiwifarms was in its infancy, would this site have survived?
> 
> Under the new laws, anything that isnt a google, facebook, twitter, ece sanctioned site would disappear. No more 4chan, no more kiwifarms, no more comments on websites that go against whatever narrative those sites push.



I would argue the internet has not been organic for quite sometime. Regardless you are right about time to adopt. But that's more a byproduct of things being smoother if done over time.

Even in 1984 you are allowed your small spaces of dissent.


----------



## X Prime (May 30, 2020)

Regulating the banks is an absolute pipe dream on two fronts in the current US political climate.

1) Muh Private Company conservatives and so on will bend over backwards

2) Everyone else will go "what about the terrorisms"

Honestly there is absolutely no hope on that front.

As for Section 230... maybe, just maybe, Twitter can realize they are playing with fire by fucking with the political speech of the President of the United States, and back down? Perhaps? I would say the same thing if they had been doing this to Obama. It's just a stupid idea.


----------



## TwinkLover6969 (May 30, 2020)

Sorry @Null we need to repeal 230 to own the libs.

#Revoke230


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> Primarily because of the manipulation over currency. Force the payment networks to do business with every legitimate company, win it all back.



Very hard to do as you know.

I am still bitter that more shit was not done in the wake of the 08 bullshit.


----------



## The Pink Panther (May 30, 2020)

Puff said:


> Oh look, there are already BOTH "Orange man bad" and "Orange man good" replies. I can tell this is going to be a valuable and high level discussion.


Orange Man....ok sometimes?


----------



## X Prime (May 30, 2020)

6MillionBicycles said:


> Very hard to do as you know.
> 
> I am still bitter that more shit was not done in the wake of the 08 bullshit.



That's not really a surprise. If I recall, JP Morgan Chase was Obama's really big donors.


----------



## Secret Asshole (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.



I forget what documentary it was, but there was one on the early days of the crisis in 2008.

Remember in the riot thread there was this one black lady going, "Why are you letting us destroy our city?"

The banks basically went, "Why did you let us do this? We need more regulation!"

Why were they saying that? Because they were shitting themselves that they basically destroyed the world and the plebs would come for them with pitchforks, rope and guillotines. When they realized it'd only fuck over the world, and not destroy it, they backed down. The rich only understand violence. That's the only language that will force them to comply with anything.

The only time you'll see them change is when they fuck up big enough that we, collectively as a society, start killing them en masse, dragging them from their homes and their private jets and beating them to death and dragging their bodies through the streets. They can no longer be dealt with like people.


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

X Prime said:


> That's not really a surprise. If I recall, JP Morgan Chase was Obama's really big donors.



Oh, I know why it was not done. Does not make me any less bitter.

Because things are going to get worse.

They needed to be hung...in Minecraft.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

Puff said:


> Oh look, there are already BOTH "Orange man bad" and "Orange man good" replies. I can tell this is going to be a valuable and high level discussion.


Orange Man meh?


----------



## Solid Hyrax (May 30, 2020)

DNA_JACKED said:


> I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.
> 
> Both EARN IT and the alternatives would still give government power over these companies to hold them responsible, which still implies the above. Even if facebook followed along the "best practices" narrative, for instance, all it would take is one politician deciding to pick a bone with facebook on that board and Ol' Zucky would be in for a world of hurt.
> 
> ...


I hope you're right.


----------



## Sperghetti (May 30, 2020)

6MillionBicycles said:


> It’s becoming that anyways. If it has not already been that for a decade.



Oh I agree it's been heading in that direction. These days, there'd still be a sizable chunk of the internet left intact in the form of things like online shopping, Netflix, and mainstream media news websites. Obviously sites like KF, chans/forums, and even personal websites would be fucked, but use of these things is now a shell of it's former self. (Sadly.)

But I'd be curious as to the state of the big social media sites. On the one hand, they're _also _clogged with an unholy amount of corporate content. But on othe other hand, they make so much money off of advertising and, as @DNA_JACKED said, selling off user data that the corporate stuff probably wouldn't be enough to sustain them. After all, who wants to have a Twitter account when you're not allowed to tweet?


----------



## Otis Boi (May 30, 2020)

Pepito said:


> Ok, I get the banks wield a huge amount of political power but how does having less investors benefit them? If they have to police every transaction thanks to the US Patriot Act, they're missing a lot of micro-transactions form smaller investors because of the restrictions, not counting the resources needed to screen every single one of them. My point is, how is in the bank's best interest to _deny _access to credit? Isn't it the other way around?




Once you have enough money to live comfortably for a few generations then what you really start to go after is power. Beinging able to control those below you is the highest power you can obtain.


Its why Google still keeps YouTube around or why you'll see last minute investments when a big news company is going to go under. Control is what they want not more money.


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> After all, who wants to have a Twitter account when you're not allowed to tweet?



You'll only be able to tweet at your own tiny bubble or selected people. No sharing.

They'll be a tiny place you can scream into the void. That's what most people use internet for.


----------



## HOMO FOR LIFE (May 30, 2020)

6MillionBicycles said:


> You'll only be able to tweet at your own tiny bubble or selected people. No sharing.
> 
> They'll be a tiny place you can scream into the void. That's what most people use internet for.


Like tumblr? 

That turned out great, didn't it.


----------



## 6MillionCoofs (May 30, 2020)

HOMO FOR LIFE said:


> Like tumblr?
> 
> That turned out great, didn't it.



I did not say it would be good.


----------



## Puck (May 30, 2020)

Hawleys plan seems like the best option, the problem is that hes a junior senator with no charisma and he looks like a smarmy rat fucker.

Hes not even that popular in Missouri because hes tainted by his links to the former governor.


----------



## Banditotron (May 30, 2020)

Tsk tsk tsk. It's hard to belive that it's come to this, but here we are. Hey, if trump nukes the internet, @Null  , I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate all the work you've done and all the b.s. you've put up with over the years. You're a better guy than you realize.


----------



## The Grinch (May 30, 2020)

Everyday I wake up and it seems like there are new creative ways to fuck with the American people. The way I see the U.S. government, it's like them spitting in your face everyday. And one day, you wipe some of that spit off, and immediately you're called a terrorist, child molester, rapist, traitor, etc. How dare you have rights? How dare you want to be free? Remember kids, freedom is """hate speech""" is terrorism, and don't forget it. I used to wonder how people in the middle east could suicide bomb themselves, but now I understand. When you have nothing left to lose the only thing you can do is take your enemies with you.

The Boston bombers were heroes, remember how the Boston police drove down streets in tanks and aimed weapons at citizens for literally existing in the same time and place as them? And remember when the same worthless slaves cheered the police that were oppressing them? I don't even know what to do anymore. Fuck this country, fuck all you, fuck me, and fuck everything.


----------



## AnOminous (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> *My Plan for the Banks*
> All they have to do to fix online censorship is fix payment networks. No "non-kosher" alternatives to Twitter or Facebook can exist when monetization is not possible. The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does.



The only real exception to Section 230 immunity may already apply to Twitter's behavior if they have any connection to the deplatforming of Twitter alternatives.  Specifically, "Section 230 immunity does not extend to an anti-malware software provider that blocks programs for anticompetitive reasons and that the intellectual property (IP) exception to Section 230 does not apply to false advertising claims not involving IP." (archive).

A plaintiff would have to be someone actually harmed by that behavior, like a Twitter alternative or someone harmed by their false advertising claims, and an argument could be made their deceptive Terms of Service would constitute such false advertising.  Trump's EO specifically addresses this point, one of the stronger ones in an otherwise weak document.

Specifically: 



> The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.



The EO also cites the strongest Supreme Court case for public property being able to be transformed into a public forum by the representations and conduct of its owner:  "These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  _Cf_. _PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins_, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980)."  This 40 year old case has been little followed and much criticized and most subsequent case law contradicts or whittles away at it.  It may be time to revive this doctrine, though, because if the shared areas of a privately owned shopping center can be considered a public forum because of the conduct of its owners, how can a privately owned social media platform, advertised exclusively for the purposes of communication, not be?

These positions aren't particularly well developed in the EO, but they seem to be the strongest arguments in favor of the position that either Section 230 should not apply to Twitter's deceptive and/or anticompetitive practices, or that Twitter should be treated as at least a limited public forum subject to First Amendment protections, because of its own deliberate conduct in advertising itself as a platform for communication, open to the general public, which purportedly does not engage in viewpoint discrimination.


----------



## Jean Lafitte 1812 (May 30, 2020)

For people who think that the tech companies will try and save 230, Facebook has already been lobbying to kill it. They supported FOSTA, the first big carve out that's already shut down websites and parts of websites. Google has backed off things like Net Neutrality because they know they benefit from smaller competitors having more hurdles to survival. The death of 230 will lock in the largest tech companies permanently, all for the low cost of swatting down the occasional nuisance lawsuit. Considering they would probably get to write any replacement for 230, tech companies will be chomping at the bit to erase all competition.

The EFF will keep you up to date on the attempts to change it. Once something's finite, the EFF will probably have a system to contact your representatives and the EFF is currently suing to invalidate FOSTA's claw backs. Make it an issue in the election year and hope that congress doesn't shove it through in the lame duck session.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> The only real exception to Section 230 immunity may already apply to Twitter's behavior if they have any connection to the deplatforming of Twitter alternatives


Won't hold water.



			https://twitter.com/getongab
		



			https://twitter.com/MastodonProject
		



			https://twitter.com/facebook
		



			https://twitter.com/googleplus
		


etc



Jean Lafitte 1812 said:


> Google has backed off things like Net Neutrality because they know they benefit from smaller competitors having more hurdles to survival.


As someone who is technically an ISP I can promise you that there are no such hurdles with "not fucking with other people's shit". This conflation of consumer protection and regulation is nauseating. It's "don't do something" vs. "do something".


----------



## DJ Grelle (May 30, 2020)

The internet is part of the public sphere and the government should enforce free speech to ensure a working democracy.
But in practice we all know its blackr0ck as 4th power of government that decides and if its no then its GG
If this is the end, then gentlemen youre all really exceptional, and I dont mean the r.tarded kind.


----------



## Stoneheart (May 30, 2020)

Why is this an issue for the Farms itself? im pretty sure that journalism is protected in other ways.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> Why is this an issue for the Farms itself? im pretty sure that journalism is protected in other ways.


Read: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/twitter-hides-potus-tweet.70333/post-6569818


----------



## Rungle (May 30, 2020)

imagine josh, you having to babysit all the retards coming to your site and having to face multiple lawsuits because pedoposters on neinchan keep jacking off to children.
if 230 is revoked I wonder how fast the internet will die out because anyone who owns or wants to own a forum is literally writing themselves a death sentence.


----------



## HomerSimpson (May 30, 2020)

TwinkLover6969 said:


> Sorry @Null we need to repeal 230 to own the libs.
> 
> #Revoke230


Fuck off mundanematt.

The worst part is it even fucks with non americans. Revoking 230 would fuck over global cimmunications on the net because a piss baby got his feelings hurt that a website doesn't like him. I'd get banned for quoting statistics at retards who don't know shit.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 30, 2020)

DJ Grelle said:


> The internet is part of the public sphere and the government should enforce free speech to ensure a working democracy.
> But in practice we all know its blackr0ck as 4th power of government that decides and if its no then its GG
> If this is the end, then gentlemen youre all really exceptional, and I dont mean the r.tarded kind.


I mean unless you were to support Trump at this point, in which case the second one applies.

Also you can say retard normally now. Just a head's up for next time (assuming there'll be one after Trump's pissing match with Twitter).


----------



## karz (May 30, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?


Write to your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Call them. Annoy the fuck out of them.
You (probably) voted them in. And even if you didn't, you pay them with your tax dollars. They answer to you, unless you don't speak up.


----------



## Elaine Benes (May 30, 2020)

Arm Pit Cream said:


> Murder them all and it could fix everything.



Isn't that illegal?


----------



## Made In China (May 30, 2020)

If Trump kills the internet he will go down as the greatest leader in all of history.


----------



## crocodilian (May 30, 2020)

@Null, why not try something akin to this if Kiwifarms is taken off the clearnet?


----------



## HomerSimpson (May 30, 2020)

DJ Grelle said:


> The internet is part of the public sphere and the government should enforce free speech to ensure a working democracy.
> But in practice we all know its blackr0ck as 4th power of government that decides and if its no then its GG
> If this is the end, then gentlemen youre all really exceptional, and I dont mean the r.tarded kind.


Nah, the internet is, but sites like twitter and youtibe are "private services" even Kiwifarms is. I stand by my belief that if trump wants to make these fuckers sweat, he should find stuff like calls for violence and political violence and anything else not removed, then start using government orginizations, like the NSA, to strike at em. If they classify twitter a terrorist orginization, then banks can't work with twitter. It would fuck them up something bad.


----------



## TamarYaelBatYah (May 30, 2020)

Well, well, well, what have we here?


----------



## Large (May 30, 2020)

PowerWomon said:


> How does Europe manage? Don't they already have very similar laws?


Responding because Dear Leader's response might be slightly missleading.

The EU has a directive, but it's only for hosting, caching and "mere relays".








						Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Within the EU I know that Poland has a law that extends the protection to everyone who handles data without deleting or modifying it and everyone who stores data without knowing that the illegal data is illegal. https://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20021441204 (Chapter 3)

UK persecutes people for hosting illegal shit.

No idea about any other specific country/area.


----------



## Dyn (May 30, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?



I don't know but I've heard that the best place to fire a mortar launcher at the white house would be from the roof of the Rockefeller Hewitt building.


----------



## Glowie (May 30, 2020)

No matter who you vote in. They all want orwellian censorship, sterilized and child friendly internet managed by ministry of truth. 

Does anyone oppose this shit? EUs bullshit is bad enough. 

Do people have to go back to private network and usenet bbs to get away from this shit?


----------



## AnOminous (May 30, 2020)

Large said:


> Responding because Dear Leader's response might be slightly missleading.
> 
> The EU has a directive, but it's only for hosting, caching and "mere relays".
> 
> ...



This isn't particularly good for anything other than those very specific things.  Also, unlike Section 230, it has some repugnant aspects:



> Article 21
> 
> Re-examination
> 
> ...



Section 230 has nothing of this sort.  The ISP can get notice of allegedly defamatory content and basically tell the sender to go get fucked with impunity.


----------



## Bender (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> He is trying to 'clarify' the law so that deleting tweets and banning accounts is editorialization. Repealing the law in its entirety makes everyone personally, civilly liable for anything published on their platform.


Wouldn't this place be safe if the former happened? You don't edit or delete messages when you ban a user, everything that user said stays as it was, so there's no editorialising involved.

However, I guess we're in a spot of bother if the latter happens.


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.


----------



## Bender (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.


I'm not gonna pretend to know anything about how US law works, but the President can't repeal a law on his own, right?


----------



## Null (May 30, 2020)

Bender said:


> I'm not gonna pretend to know anything about how US law works, but the President can't repeal a law on his own, right?


Correct. His EO "clarifies language" and directs federal organs to do probing.


----------



## Glowie (May 30, 2020)

If worst came to pass would KF forced to migrate to Telegram altogether? (That scenario is one massive clusterfuck)
Too bad Europeans can't do jacks shit about this.


----------



## Shitassdeaddude (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.



So the usual sperging he does on twitter. I knew I shouldn't have gotten too worried.


----------



## Bender (May 30, 2020)

Null said:


> Correct. His EO "clarifies language" and directs federal organs to do probing.


So either congress or the senate (dunno the difference there) need to side with him to actually repeal the law, if I'm understanding this correctly?


----------



## I can't imagine (May 30, 2020)

Shitassdeaddude said:


> So the usual sperging he does on twitter. I knew I shouldn't have gotten too worried.



The problem isn't so much him sperging as usual.  It's that there are people in the Republican (and Democrat) parties very much interested in "fixing" the Section 230 "problem".  It probably won't be just them repealing it, but replacing it with a "new, better" (ha ha) manner of dealing with liability protections for internet service providers.  

So, where the problem comes in is that this shows he's at least amenable to the idea of seriously changing things.  The thing about his sperging is that it's usually about something nobody in Congress really _wants_ to do, or at least not enough to actually fight the battle for it.  But Section 230 is something that some of them actually would be interested in doing something about, and after the election, it's certainly possible they could do it.

That's where the scary part comes in, because if they do decide to do something about it, it could go anywhere.  They might manage to change things in a way that screws over Twitter, but also happens to cause harm to other platforms (intentionally or not).  KF, in specific, is a really small fish in the pond, and could easily wind up as collateral damage without anybody even really meaning to.


----------



## AnOminous (May 30, 2020)

I can't imagine said:


> KF, in specific, is a really small fish in the pond, and could easily wind up as collateral damage without anybody even really meaning to.



And god forbid some cunt like Katherine Clark, who specifically hates sites like this, gets involved and wants a save the troons clause.  This site gets fucked even with a neutral repeal of Section 230 but never mind if anyone decides "and fuck that guy specifically" about us.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (May 30, 2020)

Otis Boi said:


> Honestly I'm more scared of the EARN It act then anything else. I know nothing good can come from it. If it every gets passed I'm pretty much done with the internet. I can't believe Twitter couldn't keep its foot out of its mouth for more the a few minutes.
> 
> Christ what a shit year this has been


Why on Earth do you think Twitter would oppose regulation? They're a monopoly, they want nice convienient government rules in place so that they can blame 'the government' for censorship they conduct, and generally avoid criticism. This is how capitalism works lol.


DNA_JACKED said:


> Trump wont get anything.


This is silly. Trump's masters want social media sites to be forced to censor BDS activism even more. He certainly isn't going to get free reign on Twitter, but he will get that.


Jean Lafitte 1812 said:


> The EFF will keep you up to date on the attempts to change it. Once something's finite, the EFF will probably have a system to contact your representatives and the EFF is currently suing to invalidate FOSTA's claw backs. Make it an issue in the election year and hope that congress doesn't shove it through in the lame duck session.


The EFF might oppose changes that impose extra costs on hosting companies, but they couldn't care less about free speech.


----------



## fat ugly sped (May 30, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> Why on Earth do you think Twitter would oppose regulation? They're a monopoly, they want nice convienient government rules in place so that they can blame 'the government' for censorship they conduct, and generally avoid criticism. This is how capitalism works lol.



If you have to comply with complex rules or get sued out of existence, it's a hell of a lot harder to start a competitor in your garage and force the incumbent tech companies to spend 9 figures buying you out to protect your monopoly.


----------



## Sam Losco (May 30, 2020)

Bender said:


> So either congress or the senate (dunno the difference there) need to side with him to actually repeal the law, if I'm understanding this correctly?


Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 30, 2020)

@Null, I think it would be a good idea to put the Patriot Act into the OP since that does play a role in holding Net Neutrality back at the conceptual level, and I think it would be in everyone's interest to generate cross-interest in the two subject matters. I think there are too few people invested in getting rid of it since it doesn't cause everyday problems for them despite the threat imposed by it.



			https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf


----------



## Petrusha (May 30, 2020)

Null, if you ever ran for political office, I would unironically vote for you.
Anyway good luck to Americans and godspeed


----------



## Strange Wilderness (May 30, 2020)

Sam Losco said:


> Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
> Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.


Good point about Checks and Balances and how since both Political Parties are at each others throats at times it could kill whichever bill is introduced but don't go around thinking this is the magic bullet that will stop the repeal of Section 230. Biden, the Dems Presidential candidate, is in favor of killing Section 230 which means the repeal of Section 230 is an accepted goal of the DNC and they could very well get enough members in the House to vote in favor of any bill that kills it. There needs to be push against the repeal of Section 230 directed at both the Republicans and the Democrats because both parties seem in favor of  repealing it and it needs to be made apparent to both parties that the repeal of it will cost them votes


----------



## AnOminous (May 31, 2020)

Sam Losco said:


> Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
> Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.



It's very unlikely to happen, although there is a challenge in the works.

The family of a victim of Hamas terrorists is suing Facebook over Hamas postings.  



			https://mlexmarketinsight.com/insights-center/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/data-privacy-and-security/facebook-could-face-first-supreme-court-challenge-to-section-230-immunity
		


The Second Circuit held that Facebook is immune under Section 230 even for posts by literal terrorists.


----------



## Akumaten (May 31, 2020)

Everyday I'm convinced that Roy Cohn's infuence never left Trump.


----------



## Dong Schlong Phil (May 31, 2020)

DNA_JACKED said:


> I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.


My conspiracy nut worry about this point is that Google etc want to get into China.
Google already has tried implementing some forced censorship features ((like the stuff on youtube where your negative china comment gets deleted if it is written in chinese)) and they want into the chinese market.
If this 230 repeal goes through then they get "the greenlight" to implement certain censorship features globally and that might open the door to china.


----------



## dickass42069 (May 31, 2020)

cjöcker said:


> Why the fuck was he the only other option? Couldn't have we gotten an actual competent person and not a fucking reality tv star?


Somehow none of the seventeen other republican candidates were competent enough to win against Trump



Null said:


> The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.


It's mostly toothless except for the part that tells Turbo supreme giga XP Smackdown Raw I-Series ultra Boomer William "Ban encryption" Barr to come up with legislation which "would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order. " There's enough wiggle room in section six to make Chinese internet look like usenet


----------



## LolNoIPLeaksEvenLMFAO (May 31, 2020)

So guillotines? Hell half the major cities are burning so the cops are busy... just saying.


----------



## Calooby (May 31, 2020)

LolNoIPLeaksEvenLMFAO said:


> So guillotines? Hell half the major cities are burning so the cops are busy... just saying.


It's called secret para-military groups.


----------



## Tikbalang (May 31, 2020)

Petrusha said:


> Null, if you ever ran for political office, I would unironically vote for you.
> Anyway good luck to Americans and godspeed


Reminds me of some people literally voted for Punking Dog in 2016 election


----------



## Barry Scott (May 31, 2020)

Calooby said:


> It's called secret para-military groups.



I know just the men to get.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (May 31, 2020)

Secret Asshole said:


> I forget what documentary it was, but there was one on the early days of the crisis in 2008.
> 
> Remember in the riot thread there was this one black lady going, "Why are you letting us destroy our city?"
> 
> ...


I understand your sentiment, but to quote the greatest yutub entertainer of our time "You're like a 4yo trying to fight Hulk Hogan"

You have 3 options: die in the revolution, succeed with the revolution only for the revolutionaries to fuck up even more and get exploited by survivors, join the rich and shrug at all this misery. Too bad you can't really join them without an invitation anymore...


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 31, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> I understand your sentiment, but to quote the greatest yutub entertainer of our time "You're like a 4yo trying to fight Hulk Hogan"
> 
> You have 3 options: die in the revolution, succeed with the revolution only for the revolutionaries to fuck up even more and get exploited by survivors, join the rich and shrug at all this misery. Too bad you can't really join them without an invitation anymore...


I guess option 2 is just the best you could hope for  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (May 31, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> I guess option 2 is just the best you could hope for  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I'm torn between dying with glory and no regrets, and getting what I wished for and seeing myself what I have done.



Banditotron said:


> Tsk tsk tsk. It's hard to belive that it's come to this, but here we are. Hey, if trump nukes the internet, @Null  , I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate all the work you've done and all the b.s. you've put up with over the years. You're a better guy than you realize.


What do you know about @Null? You know him personally? He's a drinking buddy of yours? You're certain he keeps this website up for your pleasure? You think he'll be your friend? Seriously I keep stumbling on things like that, assuming you know the person you (I assume) never saw IRL.



The Grinch said:


> I used to wonder how people in the middle east could suicide bomb themselves, but now I understand. When you have nothing left to lose the only thing you can do is take your enemies with you.


...kinda. You're right on Palestinian suicide bombers... kinda. You might be suprised a lot of SB come from filthy rich countries like Saudi Arabia - they're 3rd (or worse) sons, with nothing to inherit, no skills, nothing. Arabian incels pretty much. They go kill themselves so they won't be a shame to the family anymore because *nobody wants to be a suicide bomber* except guys like that.


----------



## AnimeGirlConnoisseur (May 31, 2020)

Can't we just make it so that large platforms that are used by the US government (Youtube and Twitter) are classified as utilities and therefore can't discriminate against people?


----------



## PhoBingas (May 31, 2020)

AnimeGirlConnoisseur said:


> Can't we just make it so that large platforms that are used by the US government (Youtube and Twitter) are classified as utilities and therefore can't discriminate against people?


Do you really want to have to pay for an internet connection then pay to subscribe to watch an inferior jewtube


----------



## Solid Hyrax (May 31, 2020)

AnimeGirlConnoisseur said:


> Can't we just make it so that large platforms that are used by the US government (Youtube and Twitter) are classified as utilities and therefore can't discriminate against people?


If government wants a free and open platform they can commission programmers to create their own platform with a .gov in the end and let it run as free as possible. Why must the government nationalize a private company that did well for itself. This is not according to the spirit of freedom to just take hold of property, in fact it sounds socialistic.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (May 31, 2020)

Why because it sounds easy to get public support for, sure let's cut defense contractors' funding for a twitter.gov LMAO


----------



## GherkinRealness (May 31, 2020)

I know the bigger picture is an incredibly grim outlook, but in terms of the kiwi farms, is this something that can be circumnavigated by hosting the farms in a different country?


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 31, 2020)

GherkinRealness said:


> I know the bigger picture is an incredibly grim outlook, but in terms of the kiwi farms, is this something that can be circumnavigated by hosting the farms in a different country?


I was under the assumption the Farms already were.


----------



## registered 2 hide avatars (May 31, 2020)

Forgive my ignorance, but if this passes why can't you just move the servers to a different country?


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (May 31, 2020)

Which country?


----------



## geovonnigeovonni (May 31, 2020)

anyone here just want to say they want to kill donald trump? not just but all the lying politicians and ceos and billionaires that run this country. the ones who were friends with and killed epstien. the first ammendment doesn't protect this thought and that's bullshit, we all are thinking it but are too afraid to say it.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (May 31, 2020)

Please don't talk about doing anything to the POTUS. I hope you understand why.


----------



## The Mass Shooter Ron Soye (May 31, 2020)

Null may be uniquely qualified to testify before Congress on this issue.


----------



## Confused Doggo (May 31, 2020)

Call me optimistic (or dumb, whichever you prefer) but is it possible that Trump is just trying to scare these sites to get them to "get their asses in gear"?


----------



## I can't imagine (May 31, 2020)

Confused Doggo said:


> Call me optimistic (or dumb, whichever you prefer) but is it possible that Trump is just trying to scare these sites to get them to "get their asses in gear"?



It's possible; might even be probable.  But it's kinda like the guy who threatens to shoot up the school because he didn't get picked for the basketball team; he might not be serious, but it's probably not a bad idea to plan in case he is.


----------



## AnOminous (May 31, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> What do you know about @Null? You know him personally? He's a drinking buddy of yours? You're certain he keeps this website up for your pleasure? You think he'll be your friend? Seriously I keep stumbling on things like that, assuming you know the person you (I assume) never saw IRL.



You know there's nothing wrong with saying you appreciate something.  Who cares if Null is a faggot or an asshole or whatever?  He's kept a site up I like being at and have spent a lot of time on.  I'd think it sucks if it went away, but all things end.  I'm sure he had his own reasons for keeping it up, some of them selfish, but still, he's done something at great personal expense that benefited me and I'm not ashamed to say it.

Section 230 isn't going anywhere any time soon but if Null has ever had it with this bullshit and quits I won't hold it against him.


----------



## Superman93 (May 31, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> I won't hold it against him.


I will. This would've never happened if he voted for Jeb!


----------



## zigstardust (May 31, 2020)

I'm actually impressed it took until now for Trump to go full autistic mode in this regard. That's what happen when a bunch of boomers are legislating for internet stuff: "if my minion memes are protected, it's fine"
Anyways, I really doubt you'll find many politicians that are against this, mass fake news is basically the nº1 method of campaign nowadays, it's cheap and efficient.

In a couple years freedom online will be something only tech enthusiasts will be able to have.


----------



## Ineedahero (May 31, 2020)

Solid Hyrax said:


> If government wants a free and open platform they can commission programmers to create their own platform with a .gov in the end and let it run as free as possible. Why must the government nationalize a private company that did well for itself. This is not according to the spirit of freedom to just take hold of property, in fact it sounds socialistic.


Why can't we just go back to the policies these companies had before they started their thoughtcrime councils and safety commissions?


----------



## Secret Asshole (May 31, 2020)

Ineedahero said:


> Why can't we just go back to the policies these companies had before they started their thoughtcrime councils and safety commissions?



Its because of consolidation and monopolization of money, time and power. Just that simple.


----------



## HomerSimpson (May 31, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> I understand your sentiment, but to quote the greatest yutub entertainer of our time "You're like a 4yo trying to fight Hulk Hogan"
> 
> You have 3 options: die in the revolution, succeed with the revolution only for the revolutionaries to fuck up even more and get exploited by survivors, join the rich and shrug at all this misery. Too bad you can't really join them without an invitation anymore...


The rich are only humans. Last I checked none of them are bullet proof, and the poor outnumber them.


----------



## The Sauce Boss (May 31, 2020)

HomerSimpson said:


> The rich are only humans. Last I checked none of them are bullet proof, and the poor outnumber them.



The poor are complacent, fed and entertained while the rich live in true luxury and have their every whim catered to. 

No bullets are gonna fly, but oh, I wish they fucking did. In minecraft.


----------



## AnOminous (May 31, 2020)

HomerSimpson said:


> The rich are only humans. Last I checked none of them are bullet proof, and the poor outnumber them.



They're not human, though, that's why it's okay to eat them.  They don't have any feelings.


----------



## PhoBingas (May 31, 2020)

Confused Doggo said:


> Call me optimistic (or dumb, whichever you prefer) but is it possible that Trump is just trying to scare these sites to get them to "get their asses in gear"?


I really hope this is just cheeto dick huffing and puffing, and just like his wall, muslim ban and every other ''promise'' ol' zion Don spoonfed his base


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 31, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> Why because it sounds easy to get public support for, sure let's cut defense contractors' funding for a twitter.gov LMAO


Because it would just cost so much to run a Twitter clone, something that dear leader can do on a shoestring budget. China can't make do with being the enemy in front, so they're trying to worm their way behind through subversion.

Besides, nothing cleanses corruption like competition. The gains made just by doing so would enormously outweigh the future costs of not.


----------



## SBG (May 31, 2020)

Confused Doggo said:


> Call me optimistic (or dumb, whichever you prefer) but is it possible that Trump is just trying to scare these sites to get them to "get their asses in gear"?


It's what I would assume. It'd be similar to the "repeal Obamacare" narrative that was really about amending it and changing the name. 

So he's threatening to revoke 230 completely and then proceed to just amend it to make sure the new interpretation that he's asked Barr and the FCC to use will be law.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 31, 2020)

Confused Doggo said:


> Call me optimistic (or dumb, whichever you prefer) but is it possible that Trump is just trying to scare these sites to get them to "get their asses in gear"?


Whether or not that's the case no longer matters, his actions have put 230 under the spotlight and now everybody wants to repeal it for either sinister or stupid reasons. He has painted a target on the internet's back.


----------



## AnOminous (May 31, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Whether or not that's the case no longer matters, his actions have put 230 under the spotlight and now everybody wants to repeal it for either sinister or stupid reasons. He has painted a target on the internet's back.



This is why he's a stupid idiot cunt.  He fucked us over not for any real reason, but just for a hit of dopamine.  This dumb Twitter addict boomer could destroy the Internet as we know it just because he got butthurt.  This Twitter addict President is enraged that his pusher denied him a hit.  And idiots worshipped this cunt and voted him into office based on his supposed iconoclasm.  Meanwhile he is just a fucking lolcow desperate for attention and violently freaking out at anything that threatens that.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (May 31, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> This is why he's a stupid idiot cunt.  He fucked us over not for any real reason, but just for a hit of dopamine.  This dumb Twitter addict boomer could destroy the Internet as we know it just because he got butthurt.  This Twitter addict President is enraged that his pusher denied him a hit.  And idiots worshipped this cunt and voted him into office based on his supposed iconoclasm.  Meanwhile he is just a fucking lolcow desperate for attention and violently freaking out at anything that threatens that.


The only difference between this lolcow and all the others is that he technically lords over them and the rest of us and hypothetically could screw everyone over with real laws that can have real consequences. But in reality, all he really does is shit himself and sabre-rattle on twitter until he gets what he wants like all the rest.

I mean what worked for North Korea doesn't mean it should work for every situation. And these past few days have been proof of it. I'm not too big on twitter and the way they act toward their users, but the rest of the internet shouldn't suffer for the failings of one website. Not like this, anyway.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 31, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> I mean what worked for North Korea doesn't mean it should work for every situation. And these past few days have been proof of it. I'm not too big on twitter and the way they act toward their users, but the rest of the internet shouldn't suffer for the failings of one website. Not like this, anyway.


This is why making a Twitter clone under a .gov would be the biggest middle finger they could give and I sincerely don't understand why they don't just do that anyway.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (May 31, 2020)

Do you think some forums will migrate to the darkweb to avoid the absurd censorship if shit hits the fan?


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (May 31, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Do you think some forums will migrate to the darkweb to avoid the absurd censorship if shit hits the fan?


Someone will uncover it, report it and everyone involved will be assfucked, especially since deep web sites are prone to either existing for the express purpose of distributing or being the target of planted CP, the former working as a prime precedent to give legitimacy to the latter.

This is not "Let's shimmy out of the way & hide," this is not "Let's comply and survive," this is an extinction level event.


----------



## HomerSimpson (May 31, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> They're not human, though, that's why it's okay to eat them.  They don't have any feelings.


Sounds like commie propaganda to me. "Eat the rich". Soon you'll be screaming "sieze the means of production".

Also, nice reference to nirvana.


littlearmalite said:


> The poor are complacent, fed and entertained while the rich live in true luxury and have their every whim catered to.
> 
> No bullets are gonna fly, but oh, I wish they fucking did. In minecraft.


You don't have to say in minecraft here. It wasn't too long ago I got #woke and realized the problem is that the lower class empowers all this shit. I've actually seen people defending the trillion dollar school loan debt as "but how will we buy stuff if we don't get good education". Fucking retards.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (May 31, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Someone will uncover it, report it and everyone involved will be assfucked, especially since deep web sites are prone to either existing for the express purpose of distributing or being the target of planted CP, the former working as a prime precedent to give legitimacy to the latter.
> 
> This is not "Let's shimmy out of the way & hide," this is not "Let's comply and survive," this is an extinction level event.


Illegal sites stay up for years without the people behind them getting caught, though. Silk Road didn't collapse until the owner was a retard and tried to hire a killer.


----------



## X Prime (May 31, 2020)

It's not really that simple to make a clone of twitter.

Many people with the know-how have mouths to feed, friendship networks, and/or ideologies of their own. Who would want to stick their neck out to be the guy who made Twitter for INSERT BOGEYMAN HERE?


----------



## Vecr (May 31, 2020)

X Prime said:


> It's not really that simple to make a clone of twitter.
> 
> Many people with the know-how have mouths to feed, friendship networks, and/or ideologies of their own. Who would want to stick their neck out to be the guy who made Twitter for INSERT BOGEYMAN HERE?



Kiwi Farms has it's own "Twitter" type site at https://kiwifarms.cc/


----------



## X Prime (May 31, 2020)

I knew I should have specified "including in terms of size." Still, you got me I guess!

Null really is a madman.


----------



## soft kitty (Jun 1, 2020)

Doesn't any other country (besides Estonia) have the equivalent of Section 230? If not then I don't see why other countries don't seem to have much trouble hosting websites.

What about Japan, for example?


----------



## AnimeGirlConnoisseur (Jun 1, 2020)

Solid Hyrax said:


> If government wants a free and open platform they can commission programmers to create their own platform with a .gov in the end and let it run as free as possible. Why must the government nationalize a private company that did well for itself. This is not according to the spirit of freedom to just take hold of property, in fact it sounds socialistic.





PhoBingas said:


> Do you really want to have to pay for an internet connection then pay to subscribe to watch an inferior jewtube


>The government can make it's own platform
I know this is an old meme, but don't you remember the Obamacare roll out? The government can't build a website. 

Also I'm not talking about nationalization. I just think that, since Twitter and Youtube are so essential for doing certain kinds of things in the modern world and it's basically impossible at this point to create a viable competitor, those companies should be held to a higher expectation than other companies. I can't find a law for it right now, but I'm pretty sure that  a utility company (gas, electricity, water) has to give you service as long as you pay them, since normal people shouldn't be expected to just make their own electrical grid or water filtration system.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 1, 2020)

dinoman said:


> Doesn't any other country (besides Estonia) have the equivalent of Section 230? If not then I don't see why other countries don't seem to have much trouble hosting websites.


They host in the U.S.


AnimeGirlConnoisseur said:


> I know this is an old meme, but don't you remember the Obamacare roll out? The government can't build a website.


Yes they can, they've done it with every .gov they've ever published. Obamacare was only such a catastrophe because Obama was re*t*arded enough to let one of his friends do the work of building it instead of hiring a real professional.


AnimeGirlConnoisseur said:


> I just think that, since Twitter and Youtube are so essential for doing certain kinds of things in the modern world and it's basically impossible at this point to create a viable competitor, those companies should be held to a higher expectation than other companies.


Websites should be considered private property, imo, for the simple fact that anyone can buy a domain and make their own website tomorrow.


----------



## Bleeding Heart (Jun 1, 2020)

I might be a bit a naive, but I don't think this will pass.

Firstly, the internet is a big business. There's a reason Zoidberg Zuckerberg is a meme, and he's just the first to make it big because of a website. Huge companies own the biggest social media platforms, and they can't let this happen. It's not just kiwifarms, this will fuck everything up. Every politician, every celebrity, basically everyone uses Twitter, that's a huge fucking deal.

Secondly, even tech inept boomers like talking shit online on facebook and shit. Anonymous shit talking truly is what brings the nation together. This was a bad move for Trump just before the election. This combined with his handling of the coronavirus situation, he's fucked. Who will vote for him now? Nobody, I hope. I really think he shot himself in both feet.



dinoman said:


> Doesn't any other country (besides Estonia) have the equivalent of Section 230? If not then I don't see why other countries don't seem to have much trouble hosting websites.





MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> They host in the U.S.


Even if it comes to pass, the US legislation doesn't affect the rest of the world. Just like everyone hosts their websites in the US currently, isn't it a possibility to stop doing that? Find a country where there’s still free speech online and host there?


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jun 1, 2020)

HomerSimpson said:


> The rich are only humans.


The poor too. Like every revolution in history you kill the ugly and replace it with disgusting.


MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> This is why making a Twitter clone under a .gov would be the biggest middle finger they could give and I sincerely don't understand why they don't just do that anyway.


Everyone will scream about cutting their budgets. Experts hired (assuming this Boomer administration can hire people who are good at their job and not only at pitching themselves) will ask for gigantic payouts because they can and they're not stupid. Making a Twitter clone is cheap but advertising, expanding, buying and maintaining servers and having security experts making sure China/Russia won't hack this shining beacon of temptation isn't.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 1, 2020)

Dankula giving a dumb take.




Social media sites won't have to make any decision, if 230 is rescinded, the decision's been made for them. More people need to read the law and actually understand its provisions and exceptions. There's nothing editorial about removing or hiding content, only in altering what it conveys. You would have to do Stalin-style editing to become a publisher.


----------



## HomerSimpson (Jun 1, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> The poor too. Like every revolution in history you kill the ugly and replace it with disgusting.
> 
> Everyone will scream about cutting their budgets. Experts hired (assuming this Boomer administration can hire people who are good at their job and not only at pitching themselves) will ask for gigantic payouts because they can and they're not stupid. Making a Twitter clone is cheap but advertising, expanding, buying and maintaining servers and having security experts making sure China/Russia won't hack this shining beacon of temptation isn't.


I am of the mind that the government needs to create alternatives to create a competition that encourages growth as a standard against the free market. Not something that moves in on the market or regulates it, since that would kill is, but a government alternative could encourage growth. As for advertising, "fuck you, advertise this, we're the government" lol.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Lolcows like @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg will love this. He finally gets to file!


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> Lolcows like @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg will love this. He finally gets to file!


i had a different opening with discrimination, but this would open the door much wider.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> i had a different opening with discrimination, but this would open the door much wider.


winning is another story. truth is a defense to libel and its 100% true you violently gangraped Sabrina with your housemate. gb2amb pedo


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> winning is another story. truth is a defense to libel and its 100% true you violently gangraped Sabrina with your housemate. gb2amb pedo


FFS, I'm trying to catch up with that riot thread and now you've distracted me with this other rabbit hole to dive into. Fancy linking me the thread?


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> FFS, I'm trying to catch up with that riot thread and now you've distracted me with this other rabbit hole to dive into. Fancy linking me the thread?


He has a whole forum. It's Tommy Tooter.






						Tommy Tooter
					

Tommy is a granny tranny who's been a blight on society since before your parents were born.




					kiwifarms.net


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> He has a whole forum. It's Tommy Tooter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Dog-Abusing, Trash-Eating Pedo, Neo-Nazi, Fake Tranny, "1st-Wave Incel", Hounded YouTuber to Suicide"

I'm in for one hell of a journey here, aren't I?

Edit: Isn't he the one who doxed Sneasel because he shitposted with the wrong YT account?


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> "Dog-Abusing, Trash-Eating Pedo, Neo-Nazi, Fake Tranny, "1st-Wave Incel", Hounded YouTuber to Suicide"
> 
> I'm in for one hell of a journey here, aren't I?
> 
> Edit: Isn't he the one who doxed Sneasel because he shitposted with the wrong YT account?


yes you are.

@Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg, did sneasel really leave because you doxed him??


----------



## FreakyFredsTrannyGranny (Jun 1, 2020)

The executive order *doesn't directly say to repeal section 230*, it just says it serves to clarify that Twitter (& the others)--because they choose to censor free speech--should no longer be protected under 230. Am I interpreting this wrong?

I read  through the EO and do not see anything about removing section 230 _(regardless of Trumps tweets saying REVOKE 230--are we sure this wasn't stating to REVOKE THE PROTECTIONS of 230 for Twitter because they're no longer a protected entity due to their actions),_ but instead that entities who choose not to be protected under 230 by taking responsibility for the content on its platform should not be given the immunity because it then becomes editorialized, right?

So Kiwifarms which does not censor free speech would still be considered immune under 230, because it's true neutral, and because 230 is not literally being revoked. Based on this part of the EO:



> Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.



my retard brain is really struggling with this

tl;dr:
Isn't this a good thing? As long as 230 isn't literally being revoked, but Twitter (& other big social media) is being recategorized and no longer protected. Which is something we've all been bitching about, being censored by SJWs


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> yes you are.
> 
> @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg, did sneasel really leave because you doxed him??


i don't have his dox.  the way it came to me is that he and a number of other really vicious assholes who like to break laws bailed out of here after the data breach last summer.



Daisymae said:


> winning is another story. truth is a defense to libel and its 100% true you violently gangraped Sabrina with your housemate. gb2amb pedo


oh really?   can you show me this proof?  Do you have an affidavit from somebody verified to be the actual subject?  They've run several impostors at me over the past three years.  4Chan rejected this because it's unfounded bullshit with no evidence of anything similar ever happening again.  you would be well advised to let it go before it gets you in trouble.   If I get my way, there will be a RICO investigation of this site and all it's members posting in this sub forum.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> yes you are.
> 
> @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg, did sneasel really leave because you doxed him??


For fuck's sake, the staff need to get their "Verified" and "Person of Interest" tags sorted out so we can tell the difference between who's a lolcow posting on the Farms and someone who verified their identity.

@Ride @wagglyplacebo pls relabel people?



Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> i don't have his dox.  the way it came to me is that he and a number of other really vicious assholes who like to break laws bailed out of here after the data breach last summer.


Yeah, maybe "dox" was the wrong word, but from what I read it was something to do with him commenting on your video with the wrong account.


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> "Dog-Abusing, Trash-Eating Pedo, Neo-Nazi, Fake Tranny, "1st-Wave Incel", Hounded YouTuber to Suicide"
> 
> I'm in for one hell of a journey here, aren't I?
> 
> Edit: Isn't he the one who doxed Sneasel because he shitposted with the wrong YT account?


none of it true other than that I am a well known freegan.   I'm a voluntary celibate  and prominent anti fascist activist .  i'll gladly pay for verified dox for sneasel.


Bender said:


> For fuck's sake, the staff need to get their "Verified" and "Person of Interest" tags sorted out so we can tell the difference between who's a lolcow posting on the Farms and someone who verified their identity.
> 
> @Ride @wagglyplacebo pls relabel people?
> 
> Yeah, maybe "dox" was the wrong word, but from what I read it was something to do with him commenting on your video with the wrong account.


that would be something internal i'm not aware of.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> none of it true other than that I am a well known freegan.   I'm a voluntary celibate  and prominent anti fascist activist .  i'll gladly pay for verified dox for sneasel.


I have sneasel's dox. 

Tony Bapst, Bellvue, Michigan.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> i'll gladly pay for verified dox for sneasel.


How much you offering?


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> I have sneasel's dox.
> 
> Tony Bapst, Bellvue, Michigan.


You have made a credible threat of violence based on a false accusation of pedophilia.   You need to produce the proof of this accusation right here and now, cupcake.   Show us your proof.



Bender said:


> How much you offering?


we can discuss that privately.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> You have made a credible threat of violence based on a false accusation of pedophilia.   You need to produce the proof of this accusation right here and now, cupcake.   Show us your proof.


How do I prove it?


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Daisymae said:


> How do I prove it?


If you have no proof, why do you even make the accusation?  because it's trendy with these assholes?   4Chan rejected this because there are no police reports, victim affidavits or any other sign that I'm a MAP.   just that single incident and a lot of conjecture based on things i've said.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> If you have no proof, why do you even make the accusation?  because it's trendy with these assholes?   4Chan rejected this because there are no police reports, victim affidavits or any other sign that I'm a MAP.   just that single incident and a lot of conjecture based on things i've said.


I mean how do i prove the dox is real?? Tell me how you want me to


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> we can discuss that privately.


There's a bunch of users on this site who dox people for shits and giggles, telling everyone the bounty would likely get it done faster.


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> There's a bunch of users on this site who dox people for shits and giggles, telling everyone the bounty would likely get it done faster.


feel free to pass the word that i've got at least twenty bucks for the dox of several of these assholes most dedicated to lying about me.  i'm flush right now thanks to Uncle Scam.


Daisymae said:


> I mean how do i prove the dox is real?? Tell me how you want me to


i'm much more concerned with the false pedophile accusation.  you need to drop that shit here and now.  i'll check that out by running it past him at AMB right now.

are you saying this is sneasel?


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Jun 1, 2020)

Solid Hyrax said:


> And the most horrible thing is, there's no backlash to this, because this is all under the pretense of protecting free speech, when it does the complete opposite


The easiest way to promote anything to marginal voters is to create a moral position for the objectors which cannot be argued against easily due to lack of understanding on the part of the marginals. Saying that this is an attempt to make information online more impartial and create an environment that's less open to abusive behavior means that if you're against section 230 being repealed you _must_ be in favor of censorship and abuse. People eat this up because the average person only understands the bubbling froth at the very top of the internet. They use Facebook, google and twitter and that's more or less the extent of their knowledge. It's like how I've never visited New York but if you dumped me in Times Square I'd know where I was but if you shoved me somewhere in New Jersey I'd have no god damn idea, you could tell me I was in Detroit and I'd believe you. Apple are doing the same thing with right to repair, they're massively bigging up the idea that changing the battery in your iPhone is a hugely dangerous process which should only be carried out by highly qualified engineers because those batteries will straight murder anyone who handles one wrong. It's not exactly a lie, but it's a very thinly stretched truth.


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/56157339_109114260273519_2075373384778121216_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=85a577&_nc_ohc=iRDReqfYpfYAX-gbqNs&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-1.fna&_nc_tp=7&oh=b573ced6410a92ffe52c8a1c2e7569a9&oe=5EFB98E0


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> feel free to pass the word that i've got at least twenty bucks for the dox of several of these assholes most dedicated to lying about me.  i'm flush right now thanks to Uncle Scam.
> 
> i'm much more concerned with the false pedophile accusation.  you need to drop that shit here and now.  i'll check that out by running it past him at AMB right now.
> 
> are you saying this is sneasel?


It sorta looks like him from our video chats, i cant tell. any other pictures hes sent you?


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> feel free to pass the word that i've got at least twenty bucks for the dox of several of these assholes most dedicated to lying about me.  i'm flush right now thanks to Uncle Scam.


1) How are you gonna send that reward money?
2) That's probably not enough to get the Farmers to sell out one of their own.


----------



## wagglyplacebo (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> For fuck's sake, the staff need to get their "Verified" and "Person of Interest" tags sorted out so we can tell the difference between who's a lolcow posting on the Farms and someone who verified their identity.
> 
> @Ride @wagglyplacebo pls relabel people?
> 
> ...


Fixed.


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> 1) How are you gonna send that reward money?
> 2) That's probably not enough to get the Farmers to sell out one of their own.


find out what they want.  i can send via paypal. i don't fuck around with any bitcoin.


Daisymae said:


> It sorta looks like him from our video chats, i cant tell. any other pictures hes sent you?


he didn't send any pictures.    https://www.facebook.com/anthony.bapst.12

you need to retract the pedophile accusation or you're going on ignore and getting named high in the criminal complaint.


----------



## Pepito The Cat (Jun 1, 2020)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> The easiest way to promote anything to marginal voters is to create a moral position for the objectors which cannot be argued against easily due to lack of understanding on the part of the marginals. Saying that this is an attempt to make information online more impartial and create an environment that's less open to abusive behavior means that if you're against section 230 being repealed you _must_ be in favor of censorship and abuse. People eat this up because the average person only understands the bubbling froth at the very top of the internet.



Playing Marketing wars, eh? Ok, I would create a campaign where I compare revoking 230 to handling your house keys to strangers.

"Would you let anyone in? Would you give everyone the capacity to SUE you because someone badmouths the authorities near your place? Don't be a Trump! #NoToRevocation230 #NotMyPresident #BlackLivesMatter"

"Did you know 230 is the Internet's Magna Carta? Did you know it's the last line between THEM and US? Don't be a Trump! #NoToRevocation230"

"Imagine giving the criminals the capacity to sue the witnesses. That's the kind of situation revoking 230 will create. Trolls suing Twitter for YOUR opinions. Someone gets offended by your sexual choices? De-platforming is one lawyer away! Fight for your rights! Don't be a Trump! #NoToRevocation230"

Etc.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Jun 1, 2020)

Pepito said:


> Playing Marketing wars, eh? Ok, I would create a campaign where I compare revoking 230 to handling your house keys to strangers.
> 
> "Would you let anyone in? Would you give everyone the capacity to SUE you because someone badmouths the authorities near your place? Don't be a Trump! #NoToRevocation230 #NotMyPresident #BlackLivesMatter"
> 
> ...


Cool, and when you have Trumps marketing budget, personality cult and have created an effective climate of, if not fear certainly insecurity,  you too can use those slogans to great effect.


----------



## Daisymae (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> he didn't send any pictures.    https://www.facebook.com/anthony.bapst.12
> 
> you need to retract the pedophile accusation or you're going on ignore and getting named high in the criminal complaint.


don't care, tubby.


----------



## Pepito The Cat (Jun 1, 2020)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> Cool, and when you have Trumps marketing budget, personality cult and have created an effective climate of, if not fear certainly insecurity, you too can use those slogans to great effect.



No, wait, I totally agree with you on this one, we are fucked sideways. I was just proposing a countermeasure.



Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> you need to retract the pedophile accusation or you're going on ignore and getting named high in the criminal complaint.



Shut up, cow.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> find out what they want.  i can send via paypal. i don't fuck around with any bitcoin.


I wouldn't recommend Paypal, it exposes the email addresses on both sides.

Privacy.com is pretty good for when you want to transfer money without giving away bank details, email address (like Paypal) or your phone number (like Venmo).


----------



## Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg (Jun 1, 2020)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> The easiest way to promote anything to marginal voters is to create a moral position for the objectors which cannot be argued against easily due to lack of understanding on the part of the marginals. Saying that this is an attempt to make information online more impartial and create an environment that's less open to abusive behavior means that if you're against section 230 being repealed you _must_ be in favor of censorship and abuse. People eat this up because the average person only understands the bubbling froth at the very top of the internet. They use Facebook, google and twitter and that's more or less the extent of their knowledge. It's like how I've never visited New York but if you dumped me in Times Square I'd know where I was but if you shoved me somewhere in New Jersey I'd have no god damn idea, you could tell me I was in Detroit and I'd believe you. Apple are doing the same thing with right to repair, they're massively bigging up the idea that changing the battery in your iPhone is a hugely dangerous process which should only be carried out by highly qualified engineers because those batteries will straight murder anyone who handles one wrong. It's not exactly a lie, but it's a very thinly stretched truth.


It's not often that i see a well thought out argument in this septic tank and on a subject real near and dear to me;  HL Mencken predicted not only the Trump administration, describing him to a tee , but he also  described the pack of fear conditioned "jackals worshipping a jackass"  who would put him in the office to a tee a hundred years ago.  














Bender said:


> I wouldn't recommend Paypal, it exposes the email addresses on both sides.
> 
> Privacy.com is pretty good for when you want to transfer money without giving away bank details, email address (like Paypal) or your phone number (like Venmo).


i have no need for something like that for my regular business..    i can send money by any method that uses my account and the bank routing number.



Daisymae said:


> don't care, tubby.


gotcha sneasel.  on ignore you go then.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> i have no need for something like that for my regular business..    i can send money by any method that uses my account and the bank routing number.


But we're protective about our own identities, we're not gonna give our personal bank details out to a stranger on the Internet.


----------



## Gog & Magog (Jun 1, 2020)

Does anyone know what effect the repeal of Section 230 would have on internet archival sites?


----------



## Dyn (Jun 1, 2020)

Bender said:


> 2) That's probably not enough to get the Farmers to sell out one of their own.



It's enough for me.



Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> i can send via paypal.



lmfao, nevermind.


----------



## SchoolsRapeKids (Jun 1, 2020)

There's a thread about it on /pol/ and damn, these people are fucking retarded. 


			https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/260058836


----------



## Solid Hyrax (Jun 1, 2020)

Mark Dice interviewing the FCC Commissioner about CDA §230: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gzokmbSXhhg/


----------



## Angry Shoes (Jun 1, 2020)

SchoolsRapeKids said:


> There's a thread about it on /pol/ and damn, these people are fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/260058836


I can never tell if /pol/ is genuinely retarded or they're just level 100 ironyfags.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 1, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> I can never tell if /pol/ is genuinely retarded or they're just level 100 ironyfags.


If they're being ironic on 4chan, then they're usually retarded.

That said, I'm legitimately surprised it took them this long to actually talk about it. Guess the riots stopped being entertaining to these tards.


----------



## Lieutenant Rasczak (Jun 1, 2020)

Null said:


> It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.


Wait, what about Ron Paul?  Because he wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve which is the very top of the banking system in the United States.


----------



## Null (Jun 1, 2020)

TFJohn said:


> Wait, what about Ron Paul?  Because he wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve which is the very top of the banking system in the United States.


How'd that work out.


----------



## Lieutenant Rasczak (Jun 1, 2020)

Null said:


> How'd that work out.


Turned out pretty bad.  Unfortunately most normies don't care about the banker question.  This is why with time, some people will need to make people aware of the banker problem.


----------



## Null (Jun 1, 2020)

TFJohn said:


> Unfortunately most normies don't care about the banker question.  This is why with time, some people will need to make people aware of the banker problem.


bro nogs are burning down every city in the us. it's over.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 1, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> I can never tell if /pol/ is genuinely retarded or they're just level 100 ironyfags.


According to that thread a lot of 4chan users hate 4chan.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jun 1, 2020)

Null said:


> bro nogs are burning down every city in the us. it's over.


Man you seem really bummed out about this whole situation.


----------



## Sir Joahim Browinson III (Jun 1, 2020)

Null said:


> bro nogs are burning down every city in the us. it's over.


It will probably die down soon. Rioters have short term memory and low capacity for their tard rage.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 1, 2020)

FreakyFredsTrannyGranny said:


> The executive order *doesn't directly say to repeal section 230*


No shit, nobody fucking cares about the EO. It's Trump's Twitter sperging that matters.


----------



## Changeofheart (Jun 1, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> According to that thread a lot of 4chan users hate 4chan.



/pol/ is the board least populated by 4chan users, so that's not unsurprising.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 1, 2020)

SchoolsRapeKids said:


> There's a thread about it on /pol/ and damn, these people are fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/260058836


lol it won't even let me in with a VPN on, what does that tell you about the state of 4chan? "No encrypted connections allowed."

Take my archive link and shove it up your ass, failchan.

http://archive.md/fdrWw


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> lol it won't even let me in with a VPN on, what does that tell you about the state of 4chan? "No encrypted connections allowed."
> 
> Take my archive link and shove it up your ass, failchan.
> 
> http://archive.md/fdrWw


ProtonVPN works fine for me, and I'm not even paying for it.


----------



## AnonAutismo (Jun 1, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> lol it won't even let me in with a VPN on, what does that tell you about the state of 4chan? "No encrypted connections allowed."



This is nothing new, 4chan has blocked VPNs and Tor for years now.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Jun 1, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> I can never tell if /pol/ is genuinely retarded or they're just level 100 ironyfags.


It used to be ironic, but now I'd say it's at least 70% genuine retards.


----------



## byuu (Jun 1, 2020)

AnonAutismo said:


> This is nothing new, 4chan has blocked VPNs and Tor for years now.


Every VPN is already permabanned anyway because someone used it to post CP.
So I can kinda understand blocking them. Just ask Null what a nuisance CP spammers are or look at the anontalk saga.


----------



## Rekkington (Jun 1, 2020)

Sir Joahim Browinson III said:


> It will probably die down soon. Rioters have short term memory and low capacity for their tard rage.



Yeah this is the "I'm always angry" version of riots, this is just a larger scale version of what they do every day. Black tard rage is 24/7.
Also I hate bankers but we know they're not gonna get attacked.


----------



## Made In China (Jun 1, 2020)

Should have killed the traditional media decades ago.  But I guess killing the internet will have to suffice.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 1, 2020)

Changeofheart said:


> /pol/ is the board least populated by 4chan users, so that's not unsurprising.


Feels like there's more than there probably actually is, though.


----------



## UnclePhil (Jun 1, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> I can never tell if /pol/ is genuinely retarded or they're just level 100 ironyfags.



The unironic /pol/tards don't realize how much they sound like SJWs.


----------



## Ineedahero (Jun 1, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> They're not human, though, that's why it's okay to eat them.  They don't have any feelings.


Once you have enough money, everything becomes trivial. Not just your wants and needs, everything. The life of another person seems important to them, but how much money would it take for their family to actually kind of appreciate it? $20 million? $100 million? In the eyes of the super rich we are just numbers. The only way to reassert our humanity is to eat them. Alive.

Is a terrible thing to say and I apologise.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 1, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> The only difference between this lolcow and all the others is that he technically lords over them and the rest of us and hypothetically could screw everyone over with real laws that can have real consequences. But in reality, all he really does is shit himself and sabre-rattle on twitter until he gets what he wants like all the rest.



Trump should troon out and then he'd be the perfect Twitter user.



Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg said:


> You have made a credible threat of violence based on a false accusation of pedophilia. You need to produce the proof of this accusation right here and now, cupcake. Show us your proof.



Die pedo.


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Jun 1, 2020)

Well I guess The White House runs on business days cause I finally got my confirmation after my initial post about messaging them.


----------



## AnonAutismo (Jun 1, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> They're not human, though, that's why it's okay to eat them.  They don't have any feelings.





Ineedahero said:


> In the eyes of the super rich we are just numbers. The only way to reassert our humanity is to eat them. Alive.
> 
> Is a terrible thing to say and I apologise.



These posts brought to you by Chairman Mao and the brigades of the Red Guards.

(Fr though that shit actually happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre#Massive_cannibalism)


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Jun 1, 2020)

DawnDusk said:


> Any possiblity that Trump's hard position on repealing Section 230 could generate support of keeping it from the Democrat party?


They could take a position of being against the repeal of Section 230, but based on Biden's current position as well as Obama's stance on 230 its clear the Dems are just as interested in repealing it as much as the Reps. The minute they get the chance they would strike it down and use their media apparatus to say what they're doing is actually a good thing. Both candidates are in favor of striking down 230 and both Parties have no interest in protecting free speech on the Internet. 



> The media was exceedingly generous in their coverage of Trump during the 2016 Republican Primary because they wanted him to be the GOP nominee, convinced he was the easiest opponent for Clinton to beat.


Someone in the DNC wished to a Genie for the worst Republican candidate ever. They got it but it turns out he was the one person who could beat Hillary due to his lack of a filter and all his scandals being met with a "meh' from the Republican voter base.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Dyn said:


> It's enough for me.


Yeah, but you're basically this forum's wildcard, so you don't count.


----------



## Boobie Bomb (Jun 1, 2020)

DawnDusk said:


> Any possiblity that Trump's hard position on repealing Section 230 could generate support of keeping it from the Democrat party?
> 
> 
> The media was exceedingly generous in their coverage of Trump during the 2016 Republican Primary because they wanted him to be the GOP nominee, convinced he was the easiest opponent for Clinton to beat.


Joe Biden said he would revoke 230 as well. So unlikely they would care about it.


----------



## Bender (Jun 1, 2020)

Chickenfoot said:


> Joe Biden said he would revoke 230 as well. So unlikely they would care about it.


lmao, Biden managed to say something. I imagine him as Null's avatar, just a drooling dog kept on a leash by the DNC.


----------



## Ineedahero (Jun 2, 2020)

AnonAutismo said:


> These posts brought to you by Chairman Mao and the brigades of the Red Guards.
> 
> (Fr though that shit actually happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre#Massive_cannibalism)


I can't find it, but ages ago I read a New Yorker article which catalogued instances of eating the rich through history, it also happened in revolutionary France and Russia. Once society breaks down things really go to shit. I wish I could find the article, it was really good. It was just after the movie Ravenous came out I think.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Jun 2, 2020)

Null might want to give this Thom Hartmann guy a piece of his mind:









						How immunity for cops and Facebook kills Americans – Alternet.org
					

archived 2 Jun 2020 06:04:22 UTC




					archive.vn
				







Spoiler: Thom Hartman hates cops so much that he wants to nuke Section 230.



When you tell people they won’t be held accountable for their actions, it almost always ends badly. That’s what’s happened with our police and our social media, two institutional pillars of personal and political society in America today. Removing those dual immunities could dramatically change—for the better—the lives of millions of Americans.

For police, the doctrine of “qualified immunity” first took hold in 1967 in the Supreme Court case _Pierson v. Ray_, when it was used “to shield white police officers from a lawsuit they faced for enforcing segregation,” as the Princetonian editorial board wrote recently.

In _Pierson v. Ray_, a group of black and white clergymen who supported racial integration sued the police for arresting their members for violating segregation rules and sitting in a “white only” part of a bus station in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1961.

The Supreme Court concluded that the police largely had immunity from being sued because the arrests were made in “good faith.” (The Supreme Court also said in _Pierson v. Ray_ that those officers were not expected to predict that the Supreme Court would decide in the 1965 case of _Thomas v. Mississippi_ that whites-only areas were unconstitutional.)

The Reagan Revolution brought a huge expansion of the doctrine when, in 1982, the Supreme Court in _Harlow v. Fitzgerald_ redefined and expanded the immunity granted to any government employee, in a case involving former members of the Nixon administration.

While the Supreme Court never mentioned police in that decision, as government employees the police gained the same immunity given by the court to members of the executive and legislative branches of government.

The result of these decisions—examples of the Supreme Court essentially making law, as Congress has only occasionally weighed in on any of these issues—is that police in America routinely get away with murder and egregious violence.

The Supreme Court may, in the next week or two, take up a case that will examine this doctrine as it specifically applies to police; they have several such cases before them, and will probably choose at least one of them to base their ruling on.

Meanwhile, immunity is also helping out the internet oligarchs.

At the same time cops are flashing white power signs and killing black people at a rate 3.5 times greater than they are killing white people, Facebook and other social media sites are providing a safe haven for killer cops and white supremacists to hang out and promote violence.

They can do this because Congress, trying to jumpstart the internet, gave immunity to the owners and operators of websites where other people could post their own opinions, comments and rants.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, essentially says that the owners of services like Facebook and Twitter have very, very little responsibility for what people say—or what they do as the result of what they or others say—on their message boards or systems.

As a result, social media has become a sewer of lies, propaganda and the incitement of violence. (Although they do generally moderate and block copyright violations; protecting property rights is a far higher priority for these companies and the law than protecting personal rights, group safety, or democracy.)

It wasn’t always this way.

Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, I ran a small business that provided “moderating” services to CompuServe, which at first, along with AOL, pretty much _was_ the internet.

We oversaw nearly 30 message boards devoted to a variety of topics from tech support for desktop publishing, Macs and PCs to ADHD, UFOs and the Kennedy assassination. A compilation of one of our message boards, published as the book _Think Fast!_, even won a national tech award and was put into an exhibition at the Smithsonian celebrating the emerging internet.

We had more than 40 people working from home all around the world, and CompuServe paid our company well for our work. We didn’t get rich from doing this as we were paying most of our employees (there were a few volunteers), but for about a decade we made a very comfortable middle-class living.

The reason CompuServe paid us to do this—and AOL was paying their own group of subcontractors to moderate their boards—was that CompuServe didn’t want to get sued if somebody posted something slanderous, obscene, or inciting violence on their platform.

Additionally, there was no anonymity: everybody who posted had to have verified their identity with a credit card (CompuServe charged a small monthly membership fee), and people who broke those rules were quarantined or outright banned from our boards. (Today this could be done via IP addresses or other means that don’t require money.)

Section 230, however, gave the owners and managers of CompuServe and AOL, and later Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and pretty much every other site on the web, immunity from lawsuit. It was, for Zuckerberg et al., the equivalent of the _Harlow v. Fitzgerald_ decision’s immunity grant to police.

Thus, today social media companies are spending millions of dollars a week to keep Section 230 in place so they won’t have to hire people like me and my old colleagues to keep their message boards clean and honest.

This is not an issue of censorship, by the way—Facebook and Twitter are already censoring posts on their platforms daily, based not on federal law or what’s best for democracy, but on their own internal rules, referred to as their “terms of service.” Facebook, for example, has given Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s _Daily Caller_ (among others)—a site that publishes people who traffic in climate denial and anti-Semitism and is notoriously pro-Trump—the power to decide which posts are fact and which are fiction, which will be taken down and which will persist.

Instead, it’s an issue of money. If Facebook, Twitter et al. were held responsible for what people post on their sites, it would cost them a fair amount of money to hire thousands of people to keep their boards clean.

Instead of being worth $85 billion, Zuckerberg may end up only being worth $80 billion, no doubt a crushing blow.

The internet has changed a lot since 1996, when CompuServe pretty much quit paying our company to moderate their boards because they no longer had liability for things said there.

Holding companies like Twitter and Facebook to the same liability standards that every newspaper or radio and TV station in America today faces will not end their business model or wipe out their profitability.

Similarly, holding police to the standards of responsibility and decency they faced at law (although often unenforced) prior to 1982 won’t end policing or wipe out their ability to keep our communities safe.

But both will go a long way toward improving Americans’ quality of life and saving our republic.


----------



## Account (Jun 2, 2020)

Chickenfoot said:


> Joe Biden said he would revoke 230 as well. So unlikely they would care about it.


The tactical voting maneuver this November is to pick the least able candidate so the least amount of retarded policies get enacted. Who will be more ineffective in revoking 230, the Situation Monitor or the guy who escaped the old-folks home?


----------



## AMHOLIO (Jun 2, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> They're not human, though, that's why it's okay to eat them.  They don't have any feelings.


From all my experience of being a lurker, if you say it, I know it must be true and legal according to American law.  Therefore I propose we create a subcommitee dedicated to organizing this plan in case all others fail.

/Joke, if that isn't clear.


Account said:


> The tactical voting maneuver this November is to pick the least able candidate so the least amount of retarded policies get enacted. Who will be more ineffective in revoking 230, the Situation Monitor or the guy who escaped the old-folks home?


Perhaps the only good thing about Trump derrangement syndrome is that it will occasionally have boomer and older lawmakers take the contradictory position they normally wouldn't care to take out of spite for cheeto in chief.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 2, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> They could take a position of being against the repeal of Section 230, but based on Biden's current position as well as Obama's stance on 230 its clear the Dems are just as interested in repealing it as much as the Reps. The minute they get the chance they would strike it down and use their media apparatus to say what they're doing is actually a good thing. Both candidates are in favor of striking down 230 and both Parties have no interest in protecting free speech on the Internet.
> 
> 
> Someone in the DNC wished to a Genie for the worst Republican candidate ever. They got it but it turns out he was the one person who could beat Hillary due to his lack of a filter and all his scandals being met with a "meh' from the Republican voter base.


I feel like while Trump wants to remove it because hissy fit with twitter. The DNC wants to remove it to push their own agenda. And what better way to push it than to remove all the cranks, shitposters, schizos and fundies from their internet.

The fact that both parties want to repeal it makes me wonder why they just don't shut down the internet altogether at this point.


----------



## Dyn (Jun 2, 2020)

Aaa0aaa0 said:


> Joke, if that isn't clear.



lol pussy.

We should drag bankers into the streets and build roads out of them, and unironically murder this retard president with an ISIS bomb.


----------



## Tikbalang (Jun 2, 2020)

Dyn said:


> lol pussy.
> ...unironically murder this retard president with an ISIS bomb.


In some place, there's a MILF bomb


----------



## Agent of Z.O.G. (Jun 2, 2020)

SuudsuAddict said:


> Null might want to give this Thom Hartmann guy a piece of his mind:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only vaguelly interesting part of this faggot article was him saying the pre 230 internet had jannies that had to be paid.


----------



## AnonAutismo (Jun 2, 2020)

> *Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL-1)*
> Matt Gaetz (my congressman) has expressed interest in changing Section 230 and has vocally shown support for Hawley's law but is not currently a cosponsor. He has not given specifics on what he'd want to change.



@Null It seems like that may have changed recently.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...out-antifa/ar-BB14TX6W?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
https://archive.md/RGH6H


> “Now that we clearly see Antifa as terrorists, can we hunt them down like we do those in the Middle East?” read Gaetz's tweet that got flagged. The social media giant’s warning limits the number of ways people can interact with it, including likes and retweets.
> *The lawmaker responded to a Monday night text from the  Washington Examiner about the label by sending a screenshot of a tweet from the president that simply read, “REVOKE 230!”*



Preemptive F for Section 230.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 2, 2020)

I still dont get why anyone should repeal it entirely when it's Twitter that's causing the ruckus. Take them to task and force them to owe up to their bullshit and poor moderation. Not drag everyone else down with them. Sure they single out Twitter each time, but they seem to fail to realize that it affects everyone else too.

So unless Twitter and every other website are somehow tied together in one big clusterfuck of a knot, it shouldn't be this hard to single out one site for doing such a shit job moderating things. Advertisers, the FCC, hell even the government do it to YouTube all the time and no other site gets affected then.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 2, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> I still dont get why anyone should repeal it entirely when it's Twitter that's causing the ruckus. Take them to task and force them to owe up to their bullshit and poor moderation. Not drag everyone else down with them. Sure they single out Twitter each time, but they seem to fail to realize that it affects everyone else too.
> 
> So unless Twitter and every other website are somehow tied together in one big clusterfuck of a knot, it shouldn't be this hard to single out one site for doing such a shit job moderating things. Advertisers, the FCC, hell even the government do it to YouTube all the time and no other site gets affected then.



They weren't really thinking about Twitter when they drafted Section 230.  They were thinking of the ISPs that existed at the time, which were generally content neutral.  Either they were exclusively ISPs, like Netcom and panix and Mindspring, which just provided Internet access and if their owners had any political opinions at all, they were usually fanatical libertarians who would as soon shut down as censor their users, or walled garden shit like Compuserve and America Online and Prodigy, which similarly really didn't care and their moderation would be for family friendly shit, if anything.

They didn't really consider that you'd have some wokeshit operation like Twitter which actually had its own political agenda to force everyone to agree with its insane bullshit and would moderate with the intent of interfering with politics and even directly interfering with elections.



Jewelsmakerguy said:


> I still dont get why anyone should repeal it entirely when it's Twitter that's causing the ruckus.



Because Trump said to and gave them a moronic three word slogan.  No need for any more thought.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 2, 2020)

All this because Twitter started fact-checking the bullshit he spouts on a daily basis.





Spoiler



Tbh I'd vote for Funny Valentine, Jesus Christ himself approved of his plan to Make America Great Again.


----------



## The Last Stand (Jun 2, 2020)

Cosmos said:


> All this because Twitter started fact-checking the bullshit he spouts on a daily basis.
> 
> View attachment 1344229
> 
> ...


Don't just talk out of your ass and MAYBE you wouldn't have these problems.


----------



## Ineedahero (Jun 2, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Don't just talk out of your ass and MAYBE you wouldn't have these problems.


Yeah @Cosmos, you bitch.


----------



## Bender (Jun 2, 2020)

Ineedahero said:


> Yeah @Cosmos, you bitch.


Cosmos is my friendo, please apologise.


----------



## X Prime (Jun 2, 2020)

Bender said:


> Cosmos is my friendo, please apologise.



Yeah really, you can use spicier insults than that, @Ineedahero. Their posting is universally terrible.


----------



## Bender (Jun 2, 2020)

X Prime said:


> Yeah really, you can use spicier insults than that, @Ineedahero. Their posting is universally terrible.


pls stop being mean to my friendos.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 3, 2020)

X Prime said:


> Yeah really, you can use spicier insults than that, @Ineedahero. Their posting is universally terrible.



I can abide a lot of things, but when you insult the quality of my shitposting, you've gone too far


----------



## Nobunaga (Jun 3, 2020)

So is this website closing or was null just having another sperg out for nothing?


----------



## Large (Jun 3, 2020)

the autist of dojima said:


> So is this website closing or was null just having another sperg out for nothing?


 Possibly both


----------



## YachieKicchou (Jun 3, 2020)

>Own website
>Moderate how I want to
>NOOOOO YOU ARE OPPRESSING ME NOOO YOU HAVE TO PLATFORM ME STOP
This is just the dumbest shit. Leave 230 up.


----------



## DrearyDoomguy (Jun 3, 2020)

the autist of dojima said:


> So is this website closing or was null just having another sperg out for nothing?



We'll know in about 55 minutes.


----------



## MoeChotto (Jun 3, 2020)

DrearyDoomguy said:


> We'll know in about 55 minutes.


What happens in 55 minutes?


----------



## DrearyDoomguy (Jun 3, 2020)

MoeChotto said:


> What happens in 55 minutes?



Josh stated on a 9chan thread that the both sites will shut down at 9PM EST.

Never mind. 9PM EST is in two hours. Fuck me.


----------



## Owen Grady (Jun 3, 2020)

DrearyDoomguy said:


> Josh stated on a 9chan thread that the both sites will shut down at 9PM EST.
> 
> Never mind. 9PM EST is in two hours. Fuck me.



Which thread? Can you post a link? I would think that he would make some kind of announcement over here on the Farms or pin something at the top of the page first to clarify the situation instead of just posting it in a random thread on the imageboard.


----------



## Draza (Jun 3, 2020)

DrearyDoomguy said:


> Josh stated on a 9chan thread that the both sites will shut down at 9PM EST.
> 
> Never mind. 9PM EST is in two hours. Fuck me.


Well this is sudden.


----------



## Likeigod (Jun 3, 2020)

Lol josh stop attention seeking. You know you have nothing without your kiwi tugboat coming in


----------



## Shiggy Diggster (Jun 3, 2020)

Are we going to still get our swag or is Josh going to hoard the t-shirts and stickers to build a makeshift shelter with once he is destitute and homeless without this site's income?


----------



## BOLDYSPICY! (Jun 3, 2020)

Wait, is this really the end?



*EDIT: *oh whew


You two need to just kiss already.


----------



## Likeigod (Jun 3, 2020)

BOLDYSPICY! said:


> Wait, is this really the end?


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 3, 2020)

>people believing shitposts signed with the wrong signature
wew lad


----------



## Disgruntled Pupper (Jun 3, 2020)

*eid smraf iwik eid *


----------



## DrearyDoomguy (Jun 3, 2020)

Welp. I'll take my L.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jun 4, 2020)

...all that artisan wine for nothing? Thx dull


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 4, 2020)

WOAH!

I can't believe Null's personally gonna 100% legit post photos of his real penis tomorrow morning!

This is so wild!


----------



## heyilikeyourmom (Jun 5, 2020)

rinya said:


> Man, it sure must feel good to have a two-party system.


It’s like being spitroasted only you’re paying taxes.


----------



## PootisMan (Jun 5, 2020)

This pretty means both sides are fucked from being able to criticize the other. Like, it's not going to go well for anyone.


----------



## Pope of Degeneracy (Jun 5, 2020)

Trump was threatening 230 again,



			https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269071790015471621?s=19
		


But Jack Dorsey clarifies that his video got struck down because of DMCA:



			https://twitter.com/jack/status/1269077097294688256?s=19


----------



## Jarolleon (Jun 6, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> No, I would much prefer to maintain the status quo to be honest. You know what happens to websites that censor the shit out of their users? They decline and become irrelevant.


I don't know about that, Woke Twitter is powerful enough to burn every major city in America down judging by the latest riots.


----------



## 100% VIRGIN M00TY (Jun 6, 2020)

Pope of Degeneracy said:


> Trump was threatening 230 again,
> View attachment 1353717
> 
> 
> ...



You believe Jack? Of course they are going to lie and say that Trump just so happened to get a DMCA complaint. They love fucking with him. First they fact check links, then warnings about mature content, now this, just the usual George Soros communist bullshit from Silicon Valley. I am not a fan of Trump but he doesn't make me want to vomit like the gormless communist zombies that have been brainwashed into destabilizing the west.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 6, 2020)

Jarolleon said:


> I don't know about that, Woke Twitter is powerful enough to burn every major city in America down judging by the latest riots.


This is like saying the First Amendment is a worthy sacrifice to putting an end to the Sauds. The loss of one obviously overshadows the gain of another.


Pope of Degeneracy said:


> Trump was threatening 230 again,
> View attachment 1353717
> 
> 
> ...


The fact that he's circled back around to this implies he's not blowing steam and actually intends on getting the ball rolling on this.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 6, 2020)

PootisMan said:


> This pretty means both sides are fucked from being able to criticize the other. Like, it's not going to go well for anyone.


Hell, I'd argue it'd backfire on Trump too. Just because he's president doesn't mean he's exempt from the laws he tries to force onto people either. And you just know the amount of people, both on the left _and _the right, will most certainly call him out for hypocrisy if he tries to attempt to break that rule.


----------



## PootisMan (Jun 6, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Hell, I'd argue it'd backfire on Trump too. Just because he's president doesn't mean he's exempt from the laws he tries to force onto people either. And you just know the amount of people, both on the left _and _the right, will most certainly call him out for hypocrisy if he tries to attempt to break that rule.


I wonder if he would think that he's immune to rules that he himself, put into place.


----------



## Ineedahero (Jun 6, 2020)

Oh are we still pretending he's going to shut down the entire internet because of this? I'll say it again, I predict this will only benefit freedom of speech.


----------



## Julias_Seizure2 (Jun 6, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> The fact that he's circled back around to this implies he's not blowing steam and actually intends on getting the ball rolling on this.


He may be serious about it but how much of a process would it be for him to actually do it? just saying going off of the footage of the current state of the US he has to have bigger concerns right now than twitter


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 7, 2020)

Julias_Seizure2 said:


> He may be serious about it but how much of a process would it be for him to actually do it?


He couldn't do it himself obviously, but it's not like he's without support. Hopefully Dem congressmen will have such bad TDS that they'll overcome their mutual desire to have it repealed and vote against out of spite, regardless of what Joe Biden says.


----------



## corryvreckan (Jun 7, 2020)

100% VIRGIN M00TY said:


> You believe Jack? Of course they are going to lie and say that Trump just so happened to get a DMCA complaint. They love fucking with him. First they fact check links, then warnings about mature content, now this, just the usual George Soros communist bullshit from Silicon Valley. I am not a fan of Trump but he doesn't make me want to vomit like the gormless communist zombies that have been brainwashed into destabilizing the west.


Jack is a useful idiot who’s gone on one too many a trip. Trump’s a useful idiot who thinks the success he stumbled into makes him smart. It’s not so much who they are personally but the roles they’ve found themselves in that make them juicy targets for manipulation. But we can all just stop using Twitter. We can’t all just “block” the US.


----------



## bearycool (Jun 8, 2020)

heyilikeyourmom said:


> It’s like being spitroasted only you’re paying taxes.



being spitroasted WITHOUT any lube to be exact


----------



## F/lying Frankenstein (Jun 9, 2020)

Pope of Degeneracy said:


> But Jack Dorsey clarifies that his video got struck down because of DMCA:
> View attachment 1353719
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/jack/status/1269077097294688256?s=19



What if Trump decided to revoke the DMCA instead of Section 230? Is Dorsey going to save us all by painting a target on the DMCA?


----------



## Elric of Melnibone (Jun 10, 2020)

Didn't see this posted here, an updated take from Dick, Null, and Rekieta on TDS.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 10, 2020)

Elric of Melnibone said:


> Didn't see this posted here, an updated take from Dick, Null, and Rekieta on TDS.



Yes Dick, everyone _does_ think you're a retarded person. A boomer, to be specific.


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 10, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> He couldn't do it himself obviously, but it's not like he's without support. Hopefully Dem congressmen will have such bad TDS that they'll overcome their mutual desire to have it repealed and vote against out of spite, regardless of what Joe Biden says.


And Old Media is both desperate and retarded enough to think that this will fuck over new media (not that it might actually help), and will probably support it.


----------



## Julias_Seizure2 (Jun 11, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> And Old Media is both desperate and retarded enough to think that this will fuck over new media (not that it might actually help), and will probably support it.


Old media is the most surface level garbage there is, only people who take them seriously are boomers and there probably wont be many of them left once everyone realizes that their choices are stay locked down and have a second great depression or open everything up and solve 2 problems in 1


----------



## Corydoras (Jun 11, 2020)

Dear leader convinced me to write my congressperson about this. Their response was basically "Won't someone please think of the children. EARN It Act 2020!" so that was encouraging. I'm starting to see why people resort to burning things.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Jun 11, 2020)

>mfw we still haven't had the Internet blown up yet.


----------



## Splendid (Jun 11, 2020)

Anyone think it's possible to get in-person meetings with Congress?


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 11, 2020)

Splendid said:


> Anyone think it's possible to get in-person meetings with Congress?



Donate the max to the candidates on both sides and I guarantee whoever wins will pick up the phone when you call and probably even meet with you if you want to.


----------



## #zzz (Jun 13, 2020)

I'm still kind of confused why people are freaking out about 230 when at the moment you can be banned on Twitter for hate speech. You can be DMCA'd and demonetized if you don't have the youtube approved talking points, and your facebook account is banned because you posted non-inclusive news stories.  And thats before these people find you and get you fired and then set fire to your house.

And I'm writing about this on a website that used cryptocurrency to stay afloat.  If you're worried about free speech on the internet, that game is already over.


----------



## Bender (Jun 13, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> WOAH!
> 
> I can't believe Null's personally gonna 100% legit post photos of his real penis tomorrow morning!
> 
> ...


I hope his penis is as cute as that adorable cheeky smirk.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Jun 13, 2020)

#zzz said:


> I'm still kind of confused why people are freaking out about 230 when at the moment you can be banned on Twitter for hate speech. You can be DMCA'd and demonetized if you don't have the youtube approved talking points, and your facebook account is banned because you posted non-inclusive news stories.  And thats before these people find you and get you fired and then set fire to your house.
> 
> And I'm writing about this on a website that used cryptocurrency to stay afloat.  If you're worried about free speech on the internet, that game is already over.



I think some in here are confusing us supporting this with the fact that we've been saying for years if the platforms don't police themselves, the government will step in and do it. It isn't we want it to happen, but after five or six years if saying this is what will happen, you just sort of laugh when it does. This is even assuming Trump does it. 

I know his book was ghost written, but it doesn't mean he had no input. What usually happens with ghost written books is the 'author' will explain what their philosophy or advice is, and the writer will make it presentable. We've seen his 'art of the deal' behavior several times over the past few years, and while it doesn't always work, I think it is dumb to think this is the one time he's not going full ham.


----------



## Sperghetti (Jun 13, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> And Old Media is both desperate and retarded enough to think that this will fuck over new media (not that it might actually help), and will probably support it.



I'm sure they will. After all, it wouldn't really change anything for them: They've been operating as publishers for their entire existence. All they have to do is remove comments sections off their websites (if they haven't already), and they're good to go. 

They might get less ad money from clicks without the ability of people to share links to their articles over social media, but on the other hand, where else is anybody going to go for news and other info? Without the possibility of user-generated content, they'd essentially have the old age of newspapers and magazines back, without the cost of having to print and distribute anything.


----------



## GethN7 (Jun 13, 2020)

I have to admit I initially thought this was dickwaving due to Twitter being utter faggots and Trump threatening them Sword of Damocles style, but it was ultimately hot air.

Now, I'm gonna admit I can't be so sure anymore. That Chuck Wendig douche kneecapped Archive.org's library (with help from publishers who he served as the front man for) and fucked over a valuable and entirely legitimate digital library service on the internet out of sheer spite. The logic behind it was utterly inane, but that asshole actually succeeded in dicking over a service I once thought impregnable to that sort of BS.

This has shaken my confidence quite a bit, and I thus don't think it unlikely Section 230 could be the next thing on the chopping block, and while I do like a lot of what Trump does, him going after this is something even I'll call him a retard for and the scary part is he stands a decent chance of getting his way on that.

While ideally Twitter alone would be punished by having their 230 shield revoked, or so I thought, the way this is likely to have Section 230 die does not bode well for the public commons, and this site could easily be put in the crosshairs next if it truly goes down. If that happens, it would be better if Null could pull the plug on this place on his own terms rather than get legally assfucked because a law that benefited everyone more than it hurt could die over some misplaced asshurt.

I ordinarily don't like sounding like a doomer, but in this case I'm forced to concede it might actually become real for once.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 13, 2020)

GethN7 said:


> I have to admit I initially thought this was dickwaving due to Twitter being utter faggots and Trump threatening them Sword of Damocles style, but it was ultimately hot air.
> 
> Now, I'm gonna admit I can't be so sure anymore. That Chuck Wendig douche kneecapped Archive.org's library (with help from publishers who he served as the front man for) and fucked over a valuable and entirely legitimate digital library service on the internet out of sheer spite. The logic behind it was utterly inane, but that asshole actually succeeded in dicking over a service I once thought impregnable to that sort of BS.
> 
> ...


It would be nice if Trump just threatened twitter, as they need to know their place. It makes me wonder why he feels the need to repeal the section entirely instead of directly punishing Twiter for their bullshit practices like any sane person would?


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 14, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> It would be nice if Trump just threatened twitter, as they need to know their place. It makes me wonder why he feels the need to repeal the section entirely instead of directly punishing Twiter for their bullshit practices like any sane person would?


Boomers probably equate twitter and facebook together, it would explain why Zuck is yeling at Jack so much. He knows any scenario that fucks twitter over will fuck facebook over, regardless of outcome.


----------



## GethN7 (Jun 14, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> Boomers probably equate twitter and facebook together, it would explain why Zuck is yeling at Jack so much. He knows any scenario that fucks twitter over will fuck facebook over, regardless of outcome.



Oh, no question. The social media networks will be the first things hit, and Null has every reason to be worried that will affect him because if they are, forums are the very next thing that will be put under assault.

And the larger the forum, the bigger the target.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jun 14, 2020)

Splendid said:


> Anyone think it's possible to get in-person meetings with Congress?


I don't think anyone in Congress gives much a shit beyond getting paid, honestly. Even if anyone in there has any good intentions, the paycheck comes first. Writing to them or whatever is just gonna net a response from some bored, underpaid intern. The actual dudes in Congress usually don't know and don't care what concerns you, I, or anyone else have.


----------



## escapegoat (Jun 14, 2020)

230 exists because of forums. Tucker Max's old forum, to be specific. Yes, it applies to boards.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 14, 2020)

escapegoat said:


> 230 exists because of forums. Tucker Max's old forum, to be specific. Yes, it applies to boards.



It was specifically created in response to an astoundingly dumb ruling in a case involving Prodigy's Money Talk forum, specifically _Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co._, 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).  It's quite unusual for Congress to pass a law specifically about a state trial court decision because it's just that bad.  Usually it has to hit at least a federal circuit before they even take notice.

Repealing § 230 would return us immediately to the exact legal situation that enacting it was intended to stop, which Congress viewed as a catastrophe for the Internet.  To underscore this, even a bunch of boomers and tech illiterates in 1995 could see how bad this would be.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 15, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> It was specifically created in response to an astoundingly dumb ruling in a case involving Prodigy's Money Talk forum, specifically _Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co._, 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).  It's quite unusual for Congress to pass a law specifically about a state trial court decision because it's just that bad.  Usually it has to hit at least a federal circuit before they even take notice.
> 
> Repealing § 230 would return us immediately to the exact legal situation that enacting it was intended to stop, which Congress viewed as a catastrophe for the Internet.  To underscore this, even a bunch of boomers and tech illiterates in 1995 could see how bad this would be.


How come they never mentioned this in the Wolf of Wall Street?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that Trump is better off abandoning Twitter and Twitter just openly acknowledge its a website for left wingers only. I mean its a website mostly used by people who are young and have a shitload of time on their hands. Find another platform and the second thing is what should be done about payment processors as that is the real challenge fucking everything up. That payment processors and banks can refuse service based on your ideology and this shit is also a threat to the 2nd amendment as well. The payment processor bullshit is a bigger issue that needs to be resolved.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 15, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> I believe that Trump is better off abandoning Twitter and Twitter just openly acknowledge its a website for left wingers only.



Twitter would have to be insane to openly tell half the possible userbase just to fuck off.  They're already swirling around the toilet.

Of course, they're insane for actually fucking over half their userbase for woke points but that's another issue.


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 15, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Twitter would have to be insane to openly tell half the possible userbase just to fuck off.  They're already swirling around the toilet.
> 
> Of course, they're insane for actually fucking over half their userbase for woke points but that's another issue.


Tumblr banned porn, reddit banned their right-wing subreddits, and digg enabled their attentionwhores.
Social Media is not known for being a source of intellectual thought, in every conceiveable manner.


----------



## Bender (Jun 15, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> digg enabled their attentionwhores.


Holy shit, that's a blast from the past. Digg was responsible for the mass influx of users to Reddit, if I remember my Internet history lessons correctly?


----------



## Sekirodiealot (Jun 15, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> Tumblr banned porn, reddit banned their right-wing subreddits, and digg enabled their attentionwhores.
> Social Media is not known for being a source of intellectual thought, in every conceiveable manner.


I wonder why tumblr banned porn?


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 15, 2020)

Sekirodiealot said:


> I wonder why tumblr banned porn?


I don't remember well, but I do remember tumblr going on some weirdass pedo crusade before the porn ban, maybe the rampant autism made tumblr implode?


----------



## teriyakiburns (Jun 16, 2020)

Sekirodiealot said:


> I wonder why tumblr banned porn?


very short version is: kids were sharing nude selfies on tumblr (with each other and with anyone else who looked at their blogs, because kids are stupid); apple banned the tumblr app from the iphone store because it contained underage nudity; tumblr responded in the classic tumblr way, not by seeking out underage content and removing it, but rather by banning all forms of porn, visual erotica, nudity, and unauthorised images of naked bodies. They made a post showing the examples of things that would be allowed by their fancy new content scanning bot, with one of the examples being a photograph of michelangelo's david. Reblogs of the post were deleted by their fancy new scanning bot because it contained a photograph of michelangelo's david.


----------



## Sekirodiealot (Jun 16, 2020)

teriyakiburns said:


> very short version is: kids were sharing nude selfies on tumblr (with each other and with anyone else who looked at their blogs, because kids are stupid); apple banned the tumblr app from the iphone store because it contained underage nudity; tumblr responded in the classic tumblr way, not by seeking out underage content and removing it, but rather by banning all forms of porn, visual erotica, nudity, and unauthorised images of naked bodies. They made a post showing the examples of things that would be allowed by their fancy new content scanning bot, with one of the examples being a photograph of michelangelo's david. Reblogs of the post were deleted by their fancy new scanning bot because it contained a photograph of michelangelo's david.


Yikes! How did they not moderate that shit in the first place?


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 16, 2020)

Sekirodiealot said:


> Yikes! How did they not moderate that shit in the first place?


Nouveau rich eCEOs from silicon valley, especially the ones in the social media sphere, have a weird habit of not knowing how to human - minus retarded shit like being spiteful against people for some perceived slight.

A good axample would be ZUCC himself. Pretty sure the vids of him during the hearing and how autistic he was is still there somewhere.

Now, add furries, and you have the tumblr CEOs.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 16, 2020)

Punished Tucker brings up Google's 230 immunity lol. However don't worry he is not calling 230 to be revoked but anti trust legislation to be used.



			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 17, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> Punished Tucker brings up Google's 230 immunity lol. However don't worry he is not calling 230 to be revoked but anti trust legislation to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890


Okay, now I see the necessity of Ad Nauseam.


----------



## Never Scored (Jun 17, 2020)

Whelp. Saw this on Yahoo Finance today. Looks like legislation could be proposed as soon as today.



> WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is preparing to proposes legislation as soon as Wednesday to try to remove protections that big tech platforms like Alphabet's Google and Facebook have had for decades, a department official said on Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
> 
> President Donald Trump said in late May he would propose legislation that may scrap or weaken a law that has protected internet companies, including Twitter, in an extraordinary attempt to regulate social media platforms where he has been criticized.
> 
> ...


----------



## dickass42069 (Jun 17, 2020)

I am Nostradamus


----------



## Balr0g (Jun 17, 2020)

Looks like Google showed their vulnerable side for a bit






though I seriously doubt anything will come of it (Ted Cruz shows a hint of courage but you need to bite hard after snarling ffs). And you know what sucks? The right wingers / conservatives get banned / shadow-banned / demonetized. Then some 
smartass says, to rub salt into the wound, create your own site. Ok nigger we do that (I think Gab would be a good example?) And then? Gab is a site for Naziss RREEEEEE. Geee thank you asshole. How about we nuke Silicon Valley if you don't play by your own rules? And you dare to ban us for tweeting #LearnToCode huh?


----------



## WhatIsThePunchline (Jun 17, 2020)

There should be a manifesto for an open internet. Not the dumb 'I will go commit violence now' kind. A real one.

Outline the principles an open internet should have.
Outline why this is a good thing, or at least that it is a good thing. 
Explain what current and past regulations supported this and why.
Explain what other regulations should support this and why. Or at least explain how to evaluate regulations against these principles. 
Give it an easy to remember, pleasant name (Principles of an Open Internet, Internet For Everyone... ask whoever came up with replacing 'Anti-Abortion' with 'Pro-Life').

Right now... aside from being fucked... everyone just goes about their day until some critical regulation gets under threat. Then the only solution is to generate outrage. In the best case scenario, politicians get scared, don't do the dumb thing they were about to do, then wait for a year or two and do it anyway. Eventually people get tired or there is to much else going on. 
The only option is to be reactive and rely on outrage. It's bad constantly being on the defensive.

If you had a conceptual core about what an open internet should be about it would make it easier to be proactive. 
If it got well known people could move on it independently without having to coordinate so much. 
People interested in the issue could use it to push for their own legislation or to try and generate support. 
It would be easier for normies to grasp onto a 'thing' rather than having to understand it. 'We must not repeal 230 or the internet will be destroyed? What like net neutrality? I can't hyperventilate right now I'm busy taking care of my children. Oh, Open Internet? Yeah I'm for that, screw those other bastards'.

If one already exist it clearly isn't well known enough.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 17, 2020)

Never Scored said:


> Whelp. Saw this on Yahoo Finance today. Looks like legislation could be proposed as soon as today.


Yep, it's over.


----------



## DawnDusk (Jun 17, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Yep, it's over.


I'm going to miss you all when 230 is revoked and Null silently pulls the plug.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Jun 17, 2020)

DawnDusk said:


> I'm going to miss you all when 230 is revoked and Null silently pulls the plug.


It won't just be the Farms, it'll be everything.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 18, 2020)

Shit, I barely go on any other sites.
IDK what I'd do all day if KF didn't exist, especially under quarantine.

EDIT:
This wording gives me hope, but just a little.

Anyone read the full proposal yet?
https://archive.md/ZlL6C

EDIT 2:
Just read it, we're fucked.


----------



## dickass42069 (Jun 18, 2020)

Are the libs owned yet?


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 18, 2020)

derpherp2 said:


> Tumblr banned porn, reddit banned their right-wing subreddits, and digg enabled their attentionwhores.



Digg broke one of its most popular features to favor paid content over that that was actually popular and nearly instantly completely nuked their userbase.



Sekirodiealot said:


> I wonder why tumblr banned porn?



Because they were too stupid to just ban CP and it was showing up on front page shit on their phone apps and Apple kicked them off the App Store.  Also their userbase is a bunch of worthless, useless scum so unlike platforms like 4chan, they couldn't even get volunteers to do it for free.  So instead they unleashed some shitty bot that randomly deleted shit whether it was even porn or not and drove everyone off to Twitter.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 18, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> Shit, I barely go on any other sites.
> IDK what I'd do all day if KF didn't exist, especially under quarantine.
> 
> EDIT:
> ...


Liberals really have to fuck everything up. Just couldn't be happy with what you had. But nope had to ruin it for everybody because they don't think like you.

This won't even solve the issue as anti trust would have made better sense.

And payment processors pulling bullshit like banning people is a even bigger issue.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Jun 18, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> It won't just be the Farms, it'll be everything.


Been nice knowing y'all.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 18, 2020)

Now we relying on the democrats TDS in the house to stop this effort. The liberal msm is against it.


----------



## Fagnacious D (Jun 18, 2020)

Nobody is going to pay attention to this though. The Riots, Wuflu and other shit is just too distracting. We're all fucked.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 18, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> Liberals really have to fuck everything up. Just couldn't be happy with what you had. But nope had to ruin it for everybody because they don't think like you.
> 
> This won't even solve the issue as anti trust would have made better sense.
> 
> And payment processors pulling bullshit like banning people is a even bigger issue.


The 230 shit is all conservatives.


----------



## Kaede Did Nothing Wrong (Jun 18, 2020)

link


> The proposal first seeks to address the problem of companies claiming Section 230 immunity despite the fact that they are actively facilitating or soliciting illegal content. That includes, for instance, websites that exist for the sole purpose of hosting revenge porn or illegal gun sales. This, the DOJ argues, was never the intention of Section 230, which was written to enable "good samaritans" to block bad behavior, but protect them when they miss things or when they take down content they shouldn't have.
> 
> The bad samaritan exception has been promoted by some of Section 230's most prominent reformers. In a 2017 paper, Section 230 scholar and Boston University professor Danielle Citron and Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that "bad samaritans" should be denied immunity, and that companies should have to demonstrate they used a "reasonable standard of care" in removing violative content.
> 
> ...


RIP kiwifarms if this makes it into law. if not immediately then at the next democratic administration, which could be as soon as november.

republicans want to outlaw cyberbullying


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 18, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> The 230 shit is all conservatives.


It's a reaction by conservatives to liberals or progressives blocking normie right wingers on mainstream public forums in bad faith was my point.

Not that I approve of this reaction.


----------



## InsolentGaylord (Jun 18, 2020)

you guys are cowards if you can't sacrifice something to stop the insane Far Left.

You want them to exist anyway so you can tlak about them.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> you guys are cowards if you can't sacrifice something to stop the insane Far Left.
> 
> You want them to exist anyway so you can tlak about them.


There are plenty of ways that aren't neutering the internet.


----------



## Never Scored (Jun 18, 2020)

I think this is going to result in Libertarian tech-nerds abandoning the World Wide Web for something normies can't figure out. Maybe something peer-to-peer and encrypted that is protected from prying outsiders.


----------



## Kaede Did Nothing Wrong (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> you guys are cowards if you can't sacrifice something to stop the insane Far Left.
> 
> You want them to exist anyway so you can tlak about them.


lol "sacrifice." a federal set of moderation guidelines is going to fuck the right harder than the left.

guys if we don't shoot ourselves in the head first, then they'll do it!!


----------



## InsolentGaylord (Jun 18, 2020)

Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:


> lol "sacrifice." a federal set of moderation guidelines is going to fuck the right harder than the left.
> 
> guys if we don't shoot ourselves in the head first, then they'll do it!!



How do you know it will only fuck the right over?


----------



## MysteriousStranger (Jun 18, 2020)

Never Scored said:


> I think this is going to result in Libertarian tech-nerds abandoning the World Wide Web for something normies can't figure out. Maybe something peer-to-peer and encrypted that is protected from prying outsiders.



I hope someone leaves me instructions when that happens. I live here.

A while back, I had a peek at USENET to see if there were any possibilities there. It's weirdest mix of spam, mysterious encrypted gibberish, conversation fragments from years ago. It creeped me out, honestly.


----------



## Kaede Did Nothing Wrong (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> How do you know it will only fuck the right over?


first, your reading comprehension is poor and I didn't say "only." second, burden of proof is not on me to show that mass, vaguely worded censorship law to stop wrongthink is a bad idea.

your lack of awareness in supporting this revision on kf of all places is staggering.


----------



## InsolentGaylord (Jun 18, 2020)

Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:


> first, your reading comprehension is poor and I didn't say "only." second, burden of proof is not on me to show that mass, vaguely worded censorship law to stop wrongthink is a bad idea.
> 
> your lack of awareness in supporting this revision on kf of all places is staggering.



I just find it funny when people like you demand something, and then when you get it, you get upset about it.


----------



## Кот Бегемот (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> How do you know it will only fuck the right over?



because there are already enough laws on the books to charge celebs doxing and offering compensation for murder of private citizens, yet it always doesn't seem to apply to left leaning assholes, and even if it does, it seems like left leaning judges always let them get away with it. Right, not so much, because right is cucked and left, even with their little soy balls still have advantage that they are not above any hypocricy or terrorism.


----------



## Never Scored (Jun 18, 2020)

MysteriousStranger said:


> I hope someone leaves me instructions when that happens. I live here.
> 
> A while back, I had a peek at USENET to see if there were any possibilities there. It's weirdest mix of spam, mysterious encrypted gibberish, conversation fragments from years ago. It creeped me out, honestly.




The mysterious encrypted gibberish are generally small fragments of movies and stuff because most people use Usenet nowadays to download shit. Usenet is a text based medium, but eventually as the internet and computers got faster people wanted to share files. So a method was devised where data, generally a multi-part .rar containing what you want, is broken down and encoded into a shitload of text-posts. The instructions to pull all the text and reassemble it into .rar files so your computer can decompress and use it is distributed via NZB files.

I've found a few newsgroups that get a handful of posts a year. Nothing worth writing home about. Mostly people complaining about "Moslims" and Trump in political newsgroups and a few people making a half dozen or so posts a year in computer and video game newsgroups. The more general stuff has been abandoned to file sharing.


----------



## InsolentGaylord (Jun 18, 2020)

Кот Бегемот said:


> because there are already enough laws on the books to charge celebs doxing and offering compensation for murder of private citizens, yet it always doesn't seem to apply to left leaning assholes, and even if it does, it seems like left leaning judges always let them get away with it. Right, not so much, because right is cucked and left, even with their little soy balls still have advantage that they are not above any hypocricy or terrorism.



Do they need to go and kill left wingers then to not be cucked?


----------



## Kaede Did Nothing Wrong (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> I just find it funny when people like you demand something, and then when you get it, you get upset about it.


"if we don't mass censor everything then there's no way for trump to own tha libs "

you are fuckin stupid dude. the only censorship I demand is that null ban you for being this stupid.


----------



## InsolentGaylord (Jun 18, 2020)

Kaede Did Nothing Wrong said:


> "if we don't mass censor everything then there's no way for trump to own tha libs "
> 
> you are fuckin stupid dude. the only censorship I demand is that null ban you for being this stupid.



If we lived in a right wing hellhole it would be better than a Left Wing one. 

Think about that.


----------



## dickass42069 (Jun 18, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> The 230 shit is all conservatives.


It has bipartisan support because the end results is another tool to bury discussion online, and you can expect both parties to make frequent use of any such tool.



InsolentGaylord said:


> If we lived in a right wing hellhole it would be better than a Left Wing one.
> 
> Think about that.


Provide evidence for your claims or you're a libtard


----------



## MysteriousStranger (Jun 18, 2020)

Never Scored said:


> The mysterious encrypted gibberish are generally small fragments of movies and stuff because most people use Usenet nowadays to download shit. Usenet is a text based medium, but eventually as the internet and computers got faster people wanted to share files. So a method was devised where data, generally a multi-part .rar containing what you want, is broken down and encoded into a shitload of text-posts. The instructions to pull all the text and reassemble it into .rar files so your computer can decompress and use it is distributed via NZB files.
> 
> I've found a few newsgroups that get a handful of posts a year. Nothing worth writing home about. Mostly people complaining about "Moslims" and Trump in political newsgroups and a few people making a half dozen or so posts a year in computer and video game newsgroups. The more general stuff has been abandoned to file sharing.



I was strictly in the text-only newsgroups and the encrypted bits were very short. They looked like keys of some kind.

I did learn about the binaries, though, you're right. You usually pay a monthly fee for those servers and are given tens of gigs of storage, so I made the assumption it was piracy on a grand scale. Why people choose to do that rather than torrent for free, I do not know. I stopped digging at that point.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jun 18, 2020)

dickass42069 said:


> It has bipartisan support because the end results is another tool to bury discussion online, and you can expect both parties to make frequent use of any such tool.


It's weird because they're fighting, but both want pretty much the same thing, but for different reasons.

The Republicans want to destroy 230 so they can force big tech to stop being mean to them, the Democrats want to destroy 230 to send random internet trolls to prison.


----------



## Кот Бегемот (Jun 18, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> Do they need to go and kill left wingers then to not be cucked?




It would be a Chad move for sho; however, I just keep hearing "the greatest generation" bitch about their kids and grandkids that THEY raised to be utter fuck-up good for nothings and all the rights that were eroded during their lifetime certainly wasn't "great". I think that their biggest fault is keeping their tongues up their own ass (as a Slav would say) and try not to be judgemental or controvercial.


----------



## Never Scored (Jun 18, 2020)

MysteriousStranger said:


> I was strictly in the text-only newsgroups and the encrypted bits were very short. They looked like keys of some kind.
> 
> I did learn about the binaries, though, you're right. You usually pay a monthly fee for those servers and are given tens of gigs of storage, so I made the assumption it was piracy on a grand scale. Why people choose to do that rather than torrent for free, I do not know. I stopped digging at that point.



Most paid Usenet plans are encrypted and torrenting is not. If you want to encrypt torrenting you generally need to pay for a VPN anyway. It's also client/server system as opposed to peer-to-peer. Using a peer-to-peer service like torrents you generally upload portions of the file as you download and so you can be found liable for distributing copyrighted material. You upload nothing downloading Usenet binaries so at worst you can be held liable for a single copy of the media. In terms of ease of use, Usenet is also more perplexing than torrents to your average person so it generally flies under the radar of government and the media a little more.

I pay around $60 a year for a bundle that includes 50 gigs of Usenet access a month and VPN access. I  get all my entertainment from that and don't subscribe services like Netflix or Disney + or whatever. Well worth it imo for the increased security over torrents and the bundled VPN plan, but to each his own.


----------



## Sperghetti (Jun 18, 2020)

Never Scored said:


> I think this is going to result in Libertarian tech-nerds abandoning the World Wide Web for something normies can't figure out. Maybe something peer-to-peer and encrypted that is protected from prying outsiders.



If this happens, it will establish a cycle:

1. tech literate establish some kind of difficult-to-access method to connect with each other
2. fun Wild West era begins
3. system grows in popularity
4. somebody makes it accessible for normies for profit
5. Eternal September event, normies take over
6. system gets nerfed to benefit corporate entities at the expense of individuals
7. repeat from Step 1


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 18, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> The 230 shit is all conservatives.



I guess if you count Joe Biden as a conservative.  He wants to do away with it too because of imaginary "Russian bots."



Never Scored said:


> I pay around $60 a year for a bundle that includes 50 gigs of Usenet access a month and VPN access. I  get all my entertainment from that and don't subscribe services like Netflix or Disney + or whatever. Well worth it imo for the increased security over torrents and the bundled VPN plan, but to each his own.



Too bad Usenet mainly survives as just an oldfag piracy method.  If you have a functioning text Usenet you don't even need Section 230 because nobody can get rid of you anyway.


----------



## Bender (Jun 18, 2020)

Never Scored said:


> Most paid Usenet plans are encrypted and torrenting is not. If you want to encrypt torrenting you generally need to pay for a VPN anyway. It's also client/server system as opposed to peer-to-peer. Using a peer-to-peer service like torrents you generally upload portions of the file as you download and so you can be found liable for distributing copyrighted material. You upload nothing downloading Usenet binaries so at worst you can be held liable for a single copy of the media. In terms of ease of use, Usenet is also more perplexing than torrents to your average person so it generally flies under the radar of government and the media a little more.
> 
> I pay around $60 a year for a bundle that includes 50 gigs of Usenet access a month and VPN access. I  get all my entertainment from that and don't subscribe services like Netflix or Disney + or whatever. Well worth it imo for the increased security over torrents and the bundled VPN plan, but to each his own.


If you're in the UK Virgin Media gives you Usenet access for free as part of your plan, with unlimited use and 30 day retention. I doubt they'll do anything about it because they're the ones sharing the copyrighted content...



AnOminous said:


> Too bad Usenet mainly survives as just an oldfag piracy method.  If you have a functioning text Usenet you don't even need Section 230 because nobody can get rid of you anyway.


So what you're saying is we should move to alt.autism.kiwifarms and ditch everyone who can't figure it out?


----------



## Made In China (Jun 18, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> If this happens, it will establish a cycle:
> 
> 1. tech literate establish some kind of difficult-to-access method to connect with each other
> 2. fun Wild West era begins
> ...



Problem is every time they establish something like that, it ends up primarily being used to share CP.


----------



## gangweedfan (Jun 19, 2020)

Made In China said:


> Problem is every time they establish something like that, it ends up primarily being used to share CP.


based! I love club penguin!!!!


----------



## корона-тян (Jun 19, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> If this happens, it will establish a cycle:



The cycle has already been established. Usenet being the first example. 

There's an interesting effort to revive and expand the Gopher protocol as well as an alternative for the web, but that shit doesn't go far enough.


----------



## #zzz (Jun 20, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> Shit, I barely go on any other sites.
> IDK what I'd do all day if KF didn't exist, especially under quarantine.
> 
> EDIT:
> ...



That's the proposal


			https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
		


_This comes after President Trump signed an executive order this month that interprets Section 230 as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct -- though DOJ officials say the department has been working on the legislative recommendations for months and they are not a direct result of Trump’s order. _


----------



## teriyakiburns (Jun 20, 2020)

корона-тян said:


> The cycle has already been established. Usenet being the first example.
> 
> There's an interesting effort to revive and expand the Gopher protocol as well as an alternative for the web, but that shit doesn't go far enough.


Any solution with sufficient infrastructure and mindshare to replace the current, public internet will be vulnerable to exactly the same problems the current internet has, because it will inevitably intersect with all the same interests. At risk of sounding like a doomer, I'm not sure there is any real solution.


----------



## Garm (Jun 20, 2020)

teriyakiburns said:


> Any solution with sufficient infrastructure and mindshare to replace the current, public internet will be vulnerable to exactly the same problems the current internet has, because it will inevitably intersect with all the same interests. At risk of sounding like a doomer, I'm not sure there is any real solution.



I would think that you can break things down to the point that networks are more personal than anything.

The worry would be that it becomes an echo chamber.

Granted I don't like the idea of Kiwi Farms being pruned down to "having to know someone and then do a quest of sorts to get in" but then again you can have the "public" part and then create little enclaves from there.


----------



## Never Scored (Jun 20, 2020)

Bender said:


> So what you're saying is we should move to alt.autism.kiwifarms and ditch everyone who can't figure it out?



It's easy enough to do, so I went ahead and got  the newsgroup free.homesteading.kiwis up and running on Usenet just in case they turf 230 and Null closes up this place without notice. It probably would not be a good long-term solution because Usenet is cumbersome by today's standards and not easily accessible on mobile devices, but it will fly under the radar because retards who care about what people say do not no how to access Usenet. It is currently on Eternal September's servers, I don't know how long it will take to propagate to other servers or if it even will, but Eternal September is free, encrypted, anti-censorship and you can use a throw away email. Once you have an account you can access the newsgroup using Thunderbird.

Don't take this as any kind of power thing. I have zero moderation ability or control over the newsgroup, and zero interest in running any kind of online community. I'm just an obsolete tech enthusiast who likes free speech.

*Edit* Aioe.org runs a free public server that requires no registration and allows 40 posts a day. It does not allow posting via Tor, but using a combination of a VPN and switching to port 563 and enabling SSL, it's highly unlikely anything you post would be traced back to you. I checked it out and the free.homesteading.kiwis newsgroup is, in fact, also on their server, so it seems it has successfully propagated to the wider Usenet universe.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Jun 20, 2020)

InsolentGaylord said:


> you guys are cowards if you can't sacrifice something to stop the insane Far Left.
> 
> You want them to exist anyway so you can tlak about them.


If you sacrifice this you end up enabling that Far Left you mouthbreather.


----------



## Julias_Seizure2 (Jun 22, 2020)

not really the most doable solution but if enough site owners got pissed enough to crowd fund a boat to host their servers on which would just sit in international waters im pretty sure no country could legitimately enforce their laws on it.

Could have a kiwi CHAZ of the ocean with our single law of 230. Just dont invite twitter


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Jun 22, 2020)

Julias_Seizure2 said:


> not really the most doable solution but if enough site owners got pissed enough to crowd fund a boat to host their servers on which would just sit in international waters im pretty sure no country could legitimately enforce their laws on it.
> 
> Could have a kiwi CHAZ of the ocean with our single law of 230. Just dont invite twitter


Who owns SeaLand right now? That "country" has a proud history of being a haven for anti-government free speech groups. Just stack every server on Earth on top of it with a few towers of fans going and boom problem solved.


----------



## Julias_Seizure2 (Jun 22, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> Who owns SeaLand right now? That "country" has a proud history of being a haven for anti-government free speech groups. Just stack every server on Earth on top of it with a few towers of fans going and boom problem solved.


I didn't know that existed already. looks like itd be an alright alternative to hosting in the states.


----------



## корона-тян (Jun 23, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> Who owns SeaLand right now? That "country" has a proud history of being a haven for anti-government free speech groups. Just stack every server on Earth on top of it with a few towers of fans going and boom problem solved.



They tried that in the early 00s, but the project fell apart. Apparently cypherpunks have the same problems that normal punks do.


----------



## Puff (Jun 23, 2020)

The current proposition I'm aware of only effects sites with over 30 million unique US users or 300 million unique users worldwide (per year), so won't effect many of the sites.


----------



## User_name (Jun 23, 2020)

Кот Бегемот said:


> It would be a Chad move for sho; however, I just keep hearing "the greatest generation" bitch about their kids and grandkids that THEY raised to be utter fuck-up good for nothings and all the rights that were eroded during their lifetime certainly wasn't "great". I think that their biggest fault is keeping their tongues up their own ass (as a Slav would say) and try not to be judgemental or controvercial.


To be fair to "the greatest generation" it's when all the fuck up started, nobody would know that would get the in this situation, and world war's, education going to left ; single mothers sky rocketing; depressions. But I would say boomers all around of world would fit better to your description, minus Africa and Middle East.


----------



## Terrifik (Jun 25, 2020)

Your browser is not able to display this video.



 Judge Tells Devin Nunes  Twitter is Platform, Not Publisher

Devin Nunes has already lost his "LOLsuit" against Twitter over the DevinNunesMom and DevinNunesCow accounts and allegedly defamatory things said about him. Let's see why the Judge dismissed Twitter from the case.


----------



## Ged! (Jun 25, 2020)

Terrifik said:


> Judge Tells Devin Nunes Twitter is Platform, Not Publisher
> 
> Devin Nunes has already lost his "LOLsuit" against Twitter over the DevinNunesMom and DevinNunesCow accounts and allegedly defamatory things said about him. Let's see why the Judge dismissed Twitter from the case.


Nunes' case was the most retarded LOLsuit you could possibly bring against twitter. Even without Section 230, this was a clean cut 1A case.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 25, 2020)

GedsForth said:


> Nunes' case was the most retarded LOLsuit you could possibly bring against twitter. Even without Section 230, this was a clean cut 1A case.



It was a classic SLAPP.  He quite clearly was just attempting to silence his critics.  People were literally just making jokes about him, mocking him, and insulting him, which every politician alive deserves.  If you don't want to be shit on, like the piece of shit you are, don't be a politician.

I also kind of love the "fuck you I'm not even going to dismiss your case in an actual opinion" thing.  He just sent a letter with none of the fancy formatting.

For extra fuck you points, he should have dismissed the case in a series of tweets.


----------



## Disco Inferno (Jun 26, 2020)

Not only is section 230 under attack, but there's a strong push to greatly weaken encryption 
EARN IT act and the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act are a direct attack against internet privacy, freedom and enables law enforcement agencies to spy on their citizens. There's also the very real risk of foreign intelligence agents/hackers exploiting the 'back door' feature to gain access to top secret encrypted data.
Anyone who supports these acts are either partisan hacks, boomers, boot lickers or re.tards


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 26, 2020)

Disco Inferno said:


> Anyone who supports these acts are either partisan hacks, boomers, boot lickers or re.tards



They can actually be more than one of those at the same time.

Let me guess Dianne Fineslime is in full support.


----------



## Coleslaw (Jun 28, 2020)

If not for 230 would Scott v. Moon have gone the other way?


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 28, 2020)

Coleslaw said:


> If not for 230 would Scott v. Moon have gone the other way?



No.  That wasn't thrown out because of 230.  It was thrown out because it was unintelligible gibberish that so completely failed to state a claim the judge threw it out without the other side even having to respond.  That's almost unheard-of.


----------



## Balr0g (Jun 30, 2020)

Is it just me or are those tech companies just asking for the repeal of section 230? Trump Derangement Syndrom seems to be really strong


----------



## Observotron (Jun 30, 2020)

Balr0g said:


> Is it just me or are those tech companies just asking for the repeal of section 230? Trump Derangement Syndrom seems to be really strong


All the while Reddit is making rules that makes it okay to hate the 'majority' (which they never specified what they meant, but you know it's white people)

As sad as it will be seeing websites like this go, I'm honestly beginning to believe that repealing 230 will be better for society, at least for a bit.


----------



## Balr0g (Jun 30, 2020)

Observotron said:


> All the while Reddit is making rules that makes it okay to hate the 'majority' (which they never specified what they meant, but you know it's white people)
> 
> As sad as it will be seeing websites like this go, I'm honestly beginning to believe that repealing 230 will be better for society, at least for a bit.


Not to mention as Tim said himself hating a majority seems to be ok for those companies. Women make up the majority in the US (in my former home country it is the same) So we can be all mysoginistic as we like because it's ok to hate the majority. Fuck this shit. I really think the Internet needs to be destroyed and then rebuild


----------



## Unog (Jun 30, 2020)

You're fucking delusional if you think Twitter, Facebook, et al will go down with everyone else if 230 is removed.

They'll suck off whoever they need to or fork over as much money in fines as it takes.  It will leave _only_ the mainstream sites doing this shit alive as survivors in a smoldering crater everyone used to call "the internet".

Which is why you have Joe Biden, aside from being deranged, agreeing with the notion of removing it.


----------



## derpherp2 (Jun 30, 2020)

Made In China said:


> Problem is every time they establish something like that, it ends up primarily being used to share CP.


The trifecta of early tech is always Pedophiles, Furries, and Drugs.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 30, 2020)

Unog said:


> You're fucking delusional if you think Twitter, Facebook, et al will go down with everyone else if 230 is removed.



Onerous regulations always favor the monopolists because only they can afford the money/bribes/etc. both to write themselves loopholes in the law as well as lawyers to make whatever they do "legal" no matter how flagrantly they actually violate the law.  Section 230 protects us and other "little guys" who otherwise have little to protect us.

Section 230 is deregulation in its purest form and not only eliminated all legislative, executive and even court-created regulation against ISPs and websites and even to some extent normal Internet users, but banned any future such regulation.  Removing this one little bit of law essentially puts all that back on the table and throws everyone into regulatory chaos where until a bunch of people go broke litigating it, we don't even know what the law is.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Jun 30, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Onerous regulations always favor the monopolists because only they can afford the money/bribes/etc. both to write themselves loopholes in the law as well as lawyers to make whatever they do "legal" no matter how flagrantly they actually violate the law.  Section 230 protects us and other "little guys" who otherwise have little to protect us.
> 
> Section 230 is deregulation in its purest form and not only eliminated all legislative, executive and even court-created regulation against ISPs and websites and even to some extent normal Internet users, but banned any future such regulation.  Removing this one little bit of law essentially puts all that back on the table and throws everyone into regulatory chaos where until a bunch of people go broke litigating it, we don't even know what the law is.



Could they, theoretically speaking, remove a single company's protection if they are American based but violate basic rights like reddit is doing?


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 1, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> Could they, theoretically speaking, remove a single company's protection if they are American based but violate basic rights like reddit is doing?



You can't pass a law that specifically says "Bob is guilty."  That's a writ of attainder.  

Section 230 doesn't stop you from suing reddit if they violate your rights directly.  The problem is what value is a reddit account?  Maybe you get a nominal value like a dollar out of it.  Unless you also get attorney's fees it isn't going to be worth it.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Jul 1, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> You can't pass a law that specifically says "Bob is guilty."  That's a writ of attainder.
> 
> Section 230 doesn't stop you from suing reddit if they violate your rights directly.  The problem is what value is a reddit account?  Maybe you get a nominal value like a dollar out of it.  Unless you also get attorney's fees it isn't going to be worth it.



I mean like them saying that majority groups don't have the same rights. It just doesn't seem right to me that I could harass or mock you for being white,  but if you did the same to me based on my race you would break the rules. This is giving favorable treatment to some American customers based on race, sexuality, etc.


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 1, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> This is giving favorable treatment to some American customers based on race, sexuality, etc.



It's obviously illegal but you need someone to sue and you need enough damages to hurt them.  Once you have the first you can bring a thousand more.  Good luck with that first one, though.


----------



## Disco Inferno (Jul 2, 2020)

The EARN IT act just cleared the senate 
it's watered down but still a danger to online freedom.


----------



## Shick (Jul 2, 2020)

Balr0g said:


> Is it just me or are those tech companies just asking for the repeal of section 230?


Yes. They're goading Trump into following through with his threats, and then they'll turn around and use it as propaganda for the election.


----------



## Jean Lafitte 1812 (Jul 3, 2020)

EFF's analysis of the re-written EARN IT act. Instead of earning anything, internet sites will be subject to 50+ different regulations from each state or local moral crusader who uses CP as their in to censor all porn or dissent.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jul 29, 2020)

Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding the Implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House
					

On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clar




					www.whitehouse.gov
				



https://archive.md/oa0L8


Spoiler: The KF doomsday clock ticks to 11:58 pm.



On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability. The petition also requests that the FCC clarify when an online platform curates content in “good faith,” and requests transparency requirements on their moderation practices, similar to requirements imposed on broadband service providers under Title I of the Communications Act.  President Trump will continue to fight back against unfair, un-American, and politically biased censorship of Americans online.


----------



## Sam Losco (Jul 30, 2020)

Russell Greer is going to kill 230 before Trump can.
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/russe...taofrussellgreer.30488/page-2203#post-7003143






Not filed yet.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jul 31, 2020)

Anyone officially filed a suit against God yet?


----------



## teriyakiburns (Jul 31, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> Anyone officially filed a suit against God yet?


Yes.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jul 31, 2020)

There was a panic in Heaven that day.


----------



## Drain Todger (Aug 2, 2020)

Sam Losco said:


> Russell Greer is going to kill 230 before Trump can.
> https://kiwifarms.net/threads/russe...taofrussellgreer.30488/page-2203#post-7003143
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, he went full Elephant Man on us.


----------



## Terrifik (Aug 13, 2020)

Comments are starting on FCC Site:








Spoiler: steps






			https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/help/ecfs
		



This will bring you to a form.

The first box is PROCEEDINGS and you need to TYPE RM-11862 - do not copy and paste or it won't come up.

This will bring up the option for RM-11862 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 - that's what you want.

From there you enter your personal data and then comment at the bottom how you feel on the subject.


Go here and then click on Express Comment


----------



## Jack Awful (Aug 13, 2020)

Terrifik said:


> Comments are starting on FCC Site:
> View attachment 1518575
> View attachment 1518582
> 
> ...


I wish the narrative was "abolish 230 only for large social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, while keep it for the little guy", but the narrative is "230 bad", so we're fucked.


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Aug 13, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> I wish the narrative was "abolish 230 only for large social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, while keep it for the little guy", but the narrative is "230 bad", so we're fucked.


Enough grumpy old farmers managed to bitch on the FCC website to keep retards from making 20 mile radius GPS blackout zones. They bought a space-based spectrum right next to GPS spectrum and petitioned the FCC to allow them to use towers because satellites are expensive. If anyone remembers the name of the company I'm talking about, you'll make my day.


----------



## I can't imagine (Aug 13, 2020)

1Tonka_Truck said:


> Enough grumpy old farmers managed to bitch on the FCC website to keep retards from making 20 mile radius GPS blackout zones. They bought a space-based spectrum right next to GPS spectrum and petitioned the FCC to allow them to use towers because satellites are expensive. If anyone remembers the name of the company I'm talking about, you'll make my day.



I'm not entirely sure based on your description, but are you talking about the Ligado Networks 5G thing?


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Aug 13, 2020)

I can't imagine said:


> I'm not entirely sure based on your description, but are you talking about the Ligado Networks 5G thing?


After some digging, close enough. Same spectrum, same retarded plan, different name. They tried this shit 10 years ago as LightSquared and I missed the comeback tour. Apparently, now the DoD is unimpressed with their plan.


----------



## ChikN10der (Aug 17, 2020)

Unpopular opinion: Kiwi Farms absolutely should be liable for libel in the lolcow content it hosts. 

The site specifically asks for damaging content, so it's curated, not random commentary. Furthermore, content that argues against libelous content is deleted as "troll shielding".

You basically say to the world "come tell nasty lies about these people we don't like, we'll protect you from consequences, and prevent correction of the record".

If I made a site where the moderation rules were "if you aren't calling Josh moon a pedophile you will be banned", I should be held responsible for calling Josh moon a pedophile.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 17, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Unpopular opinion: Kiwi Farms absolutely should be liable for libel in the lolcow content it hosts.



So lobby Congress then.  Or just fuck off.


----------



## ChikN10der (Aug 17, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> So lobby Congress then.  Or just fuck off.


Or maybe I'll just share my opinion on a dedicated thread about the issue on an internet discussion forum.
Fuck off you little John Goodman wannabe bitch. Ill lobby your mom's Congress.


----------



## Never Scored (Aug 17, 2020)

Joke's on you, both his parents are transgendered so his mom has a dick. Pucker dat ass, momma just took some bluechew.


----------



## AnOminous (Aug 17, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Or maybe I'll just share my opinion on a dedicated thread about the issue on an internet discussion forum.
> Fuck off you little John Goodman wannabe bitch. Ill lobby your mom's Congress.



Your opinion is shit and so are you.


----------



## ChikN10der (Aug 18, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Your opinion is shit and so are you.


Yeah, but you're shit with a John Goodman avatar. You wish you were married to Roseanne. Plus I'm right and you're wrong, neener neener


----------



## Bender (Aug 19, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Yeah, but you're shit with a John Goodman avatar. You wish you were married to Roseanne. Plus I'm right and you're wrong, neener neener


Is this another BoingoTango sock?


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Sep 9, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Yeah, but you're shit with a John Goodman avatar. You wish you were married to Roseanne. Plus I'm right and you're wrong, neener neener





ChikN10der said:


> Or maybe I'll just share my opinion on a dedicated thread about the issue on an internet discussion forum.
> Fuck off you little John Goodman wannabe bitch. Ill lobby your mom's Congress.


LOL man, this is pretty funny.
@AnOminous I petitioned your mom's Congress, but the automated reply stated the queue is full and to try later.
Don't feed her @Null, she'll never be full.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Sep 10, 2020)

Disco Inferno said:


> The EARN IT act just cleared the senate
> it's watered down but still a danger to online freedom.


Thankfully the ACLU opposes it, albeit for shady reasons like "violating the privacy of the LGBTQ & sex workers." Here's hoping that this shit dies before hitting the finish line.

Also, wouldn't the EARN IT act make banks, government agencies, research facilities, military communications, and all kinds of important shit vulnerable to cyber attacks? It's basically just a retarded ban on encryption. It's basically a "think of the children" argument to open U.S. secrets up to outside intelligence gathering. It's fucking stupid.


----------



## Null (Sep 10, 2020)

1) I believe Section 230 is clandestine to be fucked with.
2) I believe the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, as it has been introduced to the Senate, is the best bill we can hope for.


----------



## Vecr (Sep 10, 2020)

Null said:


> View attachment 1585595View attachment 1585596View attachment 1585597View attachment 1585598
> 
> 1) I believe Section 230 is clandestine to be fucked with.
> 2) I believe the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, as it has been introduced to the Senate, is the best bill we can hope for.



Does anyone have a rendered copy, not the 1800s version of a patch file?


----------



## Tismguide (Sep 25, 2020)

Nate Triggerpoofer said:


> The redline does state:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, this is pretty much an instant kill for the farms. Even if the site *technically* does meet the new, stricter criteria (which is a long shot), the bigger problem is that this is now something that has to be argued in court.

Today: Idiots sue Null for the content on the farms. Null wins without a court appearance because he isn't liable for user-posted content provided he follows some simple rules he clearly does.

Tomorrow: Idiots sue Null for the content on the farms. He takes the site down immediately while the lawsuit is pending. Thanks to a wildly successful Patreon, he raises millions of dollars and hires excellent lawyers. The plaintiff argues that the site promotes self harm and violent extremism. Null's lawyers are able to argue that all the "kill yourself" and "gas the jews" is ironic and not actually violent extremism, and he wins the lawsuit. Everybody stands up and claps. His lawyers collect their huge fees, and the site has been down for years while the litigation was ongoing. When he puts it back up, all the users have moved on.

Even my wildly unrealistic "here's how Bernie can still win" fanfic is a "lose" condition. Now imagine how it would actually go. Hell, Facebook has declared Rittenhouse a mass shooter and much of Twitter thinks he's a white supremacist. This reform can and will be used to silence normie Tucker talking points, let alone the shit that gets posted here.

It has been an honor and a privilege sperging with you frens.


----------



## ChikN10der (Sep 25, 2020)

Ok, but if it goes through and kiwi farms stays up, you have to eat a maga hat on camera.


----------



## gangweedfan (Sep 25, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> If this happens, it will establish a cycle:
> 
> 1. tech literate establish some kind of difficult-to-access method to connect with each other
> 2. fun Wild West era begins
> ...


Well if this new system is more secure than the old one then it would be very hard to regulate and the cycle could be broken that way. I imagine a libertarian internet would have built in encryption or something so that governent spying would be hard.


ChikN10der said:


> Why should websites get special exceptions to the law nobody else does? Why not just extend it to all companies. Nobody is responsible for anything they say.
> 
> Is there a reason to have slander and libel laws? Should unaccountable giant corporations just be allowed to lie about whoever they don't like and ruin their reputation without penalty?


The penalty is being called a retard and debunked. Which we cannot do if section 230 is deleted and sites like this one are sued to death. BTW you are a retard and your argument is debunked.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.





https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760

There's yet another Section 230 amendment that was proposed in the House as a bipartisan effort between Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI-02) and Paul Gossar (R, AZ-04) called the _Don't Touch Me Act_. It offers similar changes to Section 230.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/pres...r-introduce-bill-prevent-unwanted-anti-social
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8515/all-info

Supposedly this one is meant to only remove Section 230 protections for services which use user data without their consent to offer content, but which will realistically only result in more GDPR-essque notifications that help fucking nothing.

If you don't know what Section 230 is or how it helped foster the Internet since before the towers fell, now's a good time to learn.


			https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
		



If you're wondering why there's suddenly 5 or 6 amendments in various stages of the congress and proposed by the FBI about Section 230, it's because of tweets like this. Everyone was treated the same, and the CDA was basically untouchable. Now it's very political, very partisan, and definitely will be changed. Everyone wants to get their own carve-outs and definitions in while the iron is hot.


----------



## Smug Cat (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Tulsi Gabdard (D, HI-02)


Surf Mommy no!

Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.


----------



## RomanesEuntDomus (Oct 6, 2020)

Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

RomanesEuntDomus said:


> Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?


Tulsi's amendment is literally fucking worthless but it just goes to show I was right and any attempt to touch 230 is resulting in vultures coming out the woodworks to take their own shots at carving out shit.


----------



## Looney Troons (Oct 6, 2020)

He should change his stance from “repeal 230” to “nuke Twitter” (which I think he believes) and I think he’d probably receive unanimous support.


----------



## Dark Edea (Oct 6, 2020)

What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

Dark Edea said:


> What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?





> *My Plan for the Banks*
> All they have to do to fix online censorship is fix payment networks. No "non-kosher" alternatives to Twitter or Facebook can exist when monetization is not possible. The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does.
> 
> This process is two fold:
> ...


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Smug Cat said:


> Surf Mommy no!
> 
> Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.



Way back when they were so ignorant that when the experts told them no, leave this alone, it will make lots of money but if you boomers fuck with it, it won't, they listened to them.  Now they're just as ignorant but think they know shit because they have a BoomerBook.



RomanesEuntDomus said:


> Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?



Anything has that possibility but like nool says, this would probably be more in "now you have another dumb consent disclaimer to click on NormieBook" territory.



Dark Edea said:


> What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?



Putting it directly in the Constitution.


----------



## AnAccount (Oct 6, 2020)

People that say this repeal 230 shit won't have negative consequences must be turning an eye to the fact that the suits working for mega corps and seedy agencies take everything they can get plus more when it comes to fucking over and quashing the freedoms of the internet.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (Oct 6, 2020)

Tech-retard Boomers need to be flushed out of politics tbh.  Thankfully IT giant Wu is on the case:



Dark Edea said:


> What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?


None!


----------



## Dark Edea (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Putting it directly in the Constitution.


Is that to add clarity to the concept of free speech covering speech exercised online?


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

Dark Edea said:


> Is that to add clarity to the concept of free speech covering speech exercised online?


No. Read the EFF explanation.


----------



## gangweedfan (Oct 6, 2020)

Dont worry null Trump will make an exception for kiwi farms provided  you ban Hollywood hulk hogan, his worst enemy.


----------



## pwnest injun (Oct 6, 2020)

Seems like the thing to do is only make section 230 reforms apply to major providers that both monopolize the commons and blatantly editorialize.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

AnAccount said:


> People that say this repeal 230 shit won't have negative consequences must be turning an eye to the fact that the suits working for mega corps and seedy agencies take everything they can get plus more when it comes to fucking over and quashing the freedoms of the internet.


They're just saying it won't have negative consequences because they are being tribalistic and don't want to say Trump is doing something wrong here.


----------



## Troonos (Oct 6, 2020)

I'd agree with you, but 99% the site's users are retarded zealots who believe Trump is without fault, and I don't feel like spending my day off arguing with faggots.


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

Smug Cat said:


> Surf Mommy no!
> 
> Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.


Come to think of it, they really do see the internet like cable TV packages, don't they?  Like, they don't realize the internet doesn't work the same way as TV stations vs. pirate broadcasters back in the analog days, and don't seem to know that Twitter isn't some colossal central hub of the internet.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> This process is two fold:
> 1. Change parts of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act so banks are less liable for illegal activity done by Americans and their businesses, and



And of course this would come with all the KYC/AML shit already in PATRIOT.  This would mean you really couldn't do any monetary system shit without being doxed but we live in reality and that shit isn't going away.  Even if actually anonymous crypto takes off in a way that makes that practical it will still be illegal to use it to evade liabilities.


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 6, 2020)

Pissmaster said:


> Come to think of it, they really do see the internet like cable TV packages, don't they?  Like, they don't realize the internet doesn't work the same way as TV stations vs. pirate broadcasters back in the analog days, and don't seem to know that Twitter isn't some colossal central hub of the internet.


I mean, realistically, a few sites kind of are the colossal central hub of the internet

I don't know the numbers, but a majority of net traffic in the US goes through just a few sites, of which like, twitter and facebook are some of, I'm sure if we limit it to social media, the amount that is Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, vs everything else in terms of raw traffic is breaking 75% easily.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

AnAccount said:


> People that say this repeal 230 shit won't have negative consequences must be turning an eye to the fact that the suits working for mega corps and seedy agencies take everything they can get plus more when it comes to fucking over and quashing the freedoms of the internet.


Every time Trump tweets this shit, StoneToss reposts this as a reply.






These people really have no concept of what Section 230 does besides how it insulates Twitter from civil liability and that's all they care about. If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.


----------



## pwnest injun (Oct 6, 2020)

What I imagine actually happening with any section 230 reform is like in California where they tried to target Uber with laws against abusing independent contractor loopholes to avoid having to give benefits to employees.  The laws came into effect, started to fuck things up all over the place, and Uber + Lyft threatened to leave the state, so they got a cutout exemption from the law that was specifically made to target them.


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

Troonos said:


> I'd agree with you, but 99% the site's users are retarded zealots who believe Trump is without fault, and I don't feel like spending my day off arguing with faggots.


Political tribes and the banning of laughing at both sides for being a humongous bunch of overdramatic faggots have killed more brain cells than all of cancer combined



AnOminous said:


> And of course this would come with all the KYC/AML shit already in PATRIOT.  This would mean you really couldn't do any monetary system shit without being doxed but we live in reality and that shit isn't going away.  Even if actually anonymous crypto takes off in a way that makes that practical it will still be illegal to use it to evade liabilities.



Yep: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/the-i...-privacy-focused-cryptocurrency-monero.76236/


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.



Except they wouldn't be able to say "nigger" on Twitter.  Twitter would more or less have to delete anything, immediately, that got even the slightest threat from the ADL/SPLC or whoever for some kind of hate speech, whether it was frivolous or not, because they're not going to shell out millions to defend your dumb Nazi ass.

They'd get a list of people who had to go every morning from every SJW group, religious group, social warriors on the right and left, and all you'd be left with is pure corporate pabulum from people with more money than God.


----------



## Philosophy Phil (Oct 6, 2020)

When "I'm going to say the N word" becomes an actual and legitimate threat.


----------



## Schlomo Silverscreenblatt (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Every time Trump tweets this shit, StoneToss reposts this as a reply.
> 
> View attachment 1645059
> 
> These people really have no concept of what Section 230 does besides how it insulates Twitter from civil liability and that's all they care about. If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.


I was just about to post this but I guess I was too slow. Oh well, stonetoss is a retard and here's the archive of said tweet. They really just want it gone to "own the libs" because trump is posting it


----------



## CatParty (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Except they wouldn't be able to say "nigger" on Twitter.  Twitter would more or less have to delete anything, immediately, that got even the slightest threat from the ADL/SPLC or whoever for some kind of hate speech, whether it was frivolous or not, because they're not going to shell out millions to defend your dumb Nazi ass.
> 
> They'd get a list of people who had to go every morning from every SJW group, religious group, social warriors on the right and left, and all you'd be left with is pure corporate pabulum from people with more money than God.


It’s the dumbest idea possible to touch it and every time Trump throws a tantrum it’s gets closer to going away


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

CatParty said:


> It’s the dumbest idea possible to touch it and every time Trump throws a tantrum it’s gets closer to going away



This is what happens when you elect a baby in the form of a full grown man and give him the White House as a playpen.


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

Sheryl Nome said:


> I mean, realistically, a few sites kind of are the colossal central hub of the internet
> 
> I don't know the numbers, but a majority of net traffic in the US goes through just a few sites, of which like, twitter and facebook are some of, I'm sure if we limit it to social media, the amount that is Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, vs everything else in terms of raw traffic is breaking 75% easily.


Yeah, though it's not like 90's AOL when you connected through them and saw their shit at first, with a lot of people (me included, when I was a kid) not even realizing there was a whole wide internet out there full of people like us that stay away from big social media.  Then again, there's nowhere alternative that'd interest a normie because of the problems of monetization.  Surprise surprise, Null is right again.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


The boomer GEOTUS wanted to leave the hospital JUST to post some stupid shit on Twitter. Then try to repeal Section 230 WHILE denying Coronavirus.


----------



## PoisonedBun (Oct 6, 2020)

pwnest injun said:


> What I imagine actually happening with any section 230 reform is like in California where they tried to target Uber with laws against abusing independent contractor loopholes to avoid having to give benefits to employees.  The laws came into effect, started to fuck things up all over the place, and Uber + Lyft threatened to leave the state, so they got a cutout exemption from the law that was specifically made to target them.



It's kind of unacceptable people with enough money to buy God are the ones who make the laws rather than actual government trying to improve quality of life. Of course Trump doesn't recognize this as a person with money. The only people left on the internet who can get those exemptions will be the big boys and actual abuses (ei arbitrary payment processor rules) will go unchanged.


----------



## Angry Shoes (Oct 6, 2020)

Schlomo Silverscreenblatt said:


> I was just about to post this but I guess I was too slow. Oh well, stonetoss is a retard and here's the archive of said tweet. They really just want it gone to "own the libs" because trump is posting it


ST's entire persona is being controversial. Why would he change his tune now?

Also most faggots proposing we get rid of 230 use super-popular normie sites anyways. They don't care about smaller sites like us.


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> This is what happens when you elect a baby in the form of a full grown man and give him the White House as a playpen.


There's probably a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" joke in here, considering the problem comes down to monetization and oligopolies keeping even the possibility of serious competition locked out. 

The same president that hammered the table over bringing manufacturing back to America sure doesn't seem to give a fuck that all of the manufacturing will be exclusively under the wings of billion and trillion dollar companies.  How many small businesses shut down during COVID, and how much money did Amazon make this year?  The answer to both?  _*Shitloads.*_


----------



## Angry Shoes (Oct 6, 2020)

Pissmaster said:


> There's probably a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" joke in here, considering the problem comes down to monetization and oligopolies keeping even the possibility of serious competition locked out.
> 
> The same president that hammered the table over bringing manufacturing back to America sure doesn't seem to give a fuck that all of the manufacturing will be exclusively under the wings of billion and trillion dollar companies.  How many small businesses shut down during COVID, and how much money did Amazon make this year?  The answer to both?  _*Shitloads.*_


This is his 5d backgammon way of draining the swamp #TrustThePlan


----------



## Dededon't (Oct 6, 2020)

Honestly, I'm one of Trump's more avid supporters here and even I can't condone messing with 230. However, lest we forget, both candidates have spoken about doing it. There's no real winning move for us currently. Ultimately all we can do is hope it ends up going nowhere.


----------



## Chiri (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Every time Trump tweets this shit, StoneToss reposts this as a reply.
> 
> View attachment 1645059
> 
> These people really have no concept of what Section 230 does besides how it insulates Twitter from civil liability and that's all they care about. If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.


If Trump nukes 230 I probably won't even get the schadenfraude of seeing these people have to deal with an even more policed ecosystem.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

I don't understand the end game Trump is going for.

It's THEIR site, they can do what they want with THEIR site. It's not always fair, but even the President needs to realize that he can't just say whatever, whenever he wants because people will interpret that as pure fact.

Does he understand how the Internet works? Or will he just throw a temper tantrum whenever he cannot say what he wants without consequence?


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Pissmaster said:


> There's probably a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" joke in here, considering the problem comes down to monetization and oligopolies keeping even the possibility of serious competition locked out.  The same president that hammered the table over bringing manufacturing back to America sure doesn't seem to give a fuck that all of the manufacturing will be exclusively under the wings of billion and trillion dollar companies.


The problem is he is a boomer, so no going against the free market and no understanding on how tech laws work.
Also, he kind of failed the test on brining back manufacturing when he couldn't accept needing his own buisness to stop abusing H1b visas.

I refuse to blame his voters for this though, this is all on him; They voted for him out of desperation from the status quo that was killing them in areas like the rust belt and now they are getting nothing either way.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> Also most faggots proposing we get rid of 230 use super-popular normie sites anyways. They don't care about smaller sites like us.



Which is why they'll destroy us without even thinking about it, because the consequences of their stupidity don't matter enough for them even to care about them at all.  They'll just slap a minor regulatory cost on the big boys while killing the little boys outright.


----------



## An Avenging Bird (Oct 6, 2020)

Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?
Because that faggot Jack Dorsey sure makes it seem like he has been wanting it's decimation with all the selective deplatforming that has been going on, knowingly baiting the President.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Pissmaster said:


> There's probably a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" joke in here, considering the problem comes down to monetization and oligopolies keeping even the possibility of serious competition locked out.



If anyone involved thinks about sites like this at all we certainly would not be considered the baby or even the bathwater, but toxic sludge to be disposed of immediately.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> This is what happens when you elect a baby in the form of a full grown man and give him the White House as a playpen.


He’s the whiniest snowflake


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Which is why they'll destroy us without even thinking about it, because the consequences of their stupidity don't matter enough for them even to care about them at all.  They'll just slap a minor regulatory cost on the big boys while killing the little boys outright.


It's quite funny how people praise Trump for speaking his mind freely, yet if he goes through with this, many small time Internet communities WON'T be able to speak their minds. 

Only Trump is allowed to say what he wants. On Twitter: the social media site full of toxicity. It fits Trump well actually.


----------



## Chiri (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> I don't understand the end game Trump is going for.
> 
> It's THEIR site, they can do what they want with THEIR site. It's not always fair, but even the President needs to realize that he can't just say whatever, whenever he wants because people will interpret that as pure fact.
> 
> Does he understand how the Internet works? Or will he just throw a temper tantrum whenever he cannot say what he wants without consequence?


Let's not forget that this all started because Twitter put a fucking naughty sticker on one of his Tweets. Twitter is shit but his reaction to the disclaimer that can easily be ignored was completely overblown and now we're stuck with the consequences forever.


----------



## Lone MacReady (Oct 6, 2020)

"The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does."

This is genuinely something more people need to pay attention to. Mastercard is a BIG financial supporter of the GMOs currently importing rape-happy Muslims into the heart of Europe. Surely they aren't trying to hook those "new europeans" into the same ponzi scheme breaking native Whites.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

An Avenging Bird said:


> Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?


Once Section 230 is removed, all existing platforms will have a choice: burden themselves with legal liability, or leave the country.

Many sites will just leave, but remember the individuals who own those sites who are American will still be liable, so to truly leave you'd also have to renounce your citizenship. Some people will do this, I probably won't, I just can't be asked to learn another country's laws and move again for the sake of this website.

The few sites sufficiently rich and powerful enough to mount a full legal team and a staff of 24/7 paid-for human moderation will become the kings of the country's media. If you think Facebook, Twitter, and Google are powerful now, wait until it is only them who can even afford to run an open forum on the Internet. What will likely happen is the US will start adopting firewalls to block access to services outside the country who don't accept liability or cooperate with the US courts and then a lot of those sites I mentioned before will just be fucked.


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

An Avenging Bird said:


> Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?
> Because that faggot Jack Dorsey sure makes it seem like he has been wanting it's decimation with all the selective deplatforming that has been going on, knowingly baiting the President.


Dorsey would just trot out some kind of stronger AI moderation thing and make the report button 20 pixels bigger to appease the boomers in charge.  Any tech giant could just technobabble their way out and hire even more third worlders to moderate for them for slave labor wages, like they already do.

edit: cucked by null


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Chiri said:


> Let's not forget that this all started because Twitter put a fucking naughty sticker on one of his Tweets. Twitter is shit but his reaction to the disclaimer that can easily be ignored was completely overblown and now we're stuck with the consequences forever.


That disclaimer has triggered Trump. Now he's evoking ultimate cancel culture. 


Null said:


> Once Section 230 is removed, all existing platforms will have a choice: burden themselves with legal liability, or leave the country.


The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?


----------



## Agent Abe Caprine (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:
			
		

> bipartisan effort


Bipartisan is usually fancy talk for, "We set aside our differences for once because we want to fuck the plebs over."


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> That disclaimer has triggered Trump. Now he's evoking ultimate cancel culture.
> 
> The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?


he would be liable for defamation ect, and sued into obliteration instantly

Most people against '230' mostly just want to be able to say nigger on twitter.

Now, I hate Twitter and facebooks political censorship, but I don't know if section 230 is the way, I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that these places are the new public square, the street corner, the essential free speech tool and we can't just let corporations have control over everyone's speech.

Maybe we should just nationalize facebook that would be funny.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?


Lolcow LLC would be legally liable for everything posted on the Kiwi Farms. If you committed defamation and posted it on the forum, my company could be treated as the speaker.

Section 230 has NOTHING TO DO with fucking with Trump's tweets, but it is very important to Twitter, so he is using it as leverage.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Only Trump is allowed to say what he wants. On Twitter: the social media site full of toxicity. It fits Trump well actually.



People who live their public life on Twitter are evil morons.  No exceptions.  None.



Sheryl Nome said:


> he would be liable for defamation ect, and sued into obliteration instantly




He's already personally liable, but you wouldn't go after him directly anyway.  You'd just sue Twitter every time Trump said something you don't like, alleging that Twitter is vicariously liable for his statements because they allow him to make them.  It would soon cost too much to host such a toxic person and they'd get rid of him.  Finally they'd have the excuse they need!


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 6, 2020)

Sheryl Nome said:


> Maybe we should just nationalize facebook


Go ask some Chinese citizens how well nationalizing media was for them. By the way nothing happened on June 4th 1989.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Sheryl Nome said:


> Most people against '230' mostly just want to be able to say nigger on twitter.


So Twitter is censoring those posts, and the false equivalency is that Section 230 is responsible for that. 

If saying "nigger" or whatever conspiracy theory on the Internet is that important to people, they seriously need their Internet privileges revoked or mocked to no end.


----------



## Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth (Oct 6, 2020)

>Thinking the internet was going to stay the same when it's been a decades long crawl of governments and corporations destroying it.
>Thinking you've got any choice in the matter unless you own an ISP or multi-billion corporation. 

Lol k.


----------



## Agent Abe Caprine (Oct 6, 2020)

There's perfectly fine antitrust laws that could be enforced. 230 doesn't need touched at all.


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> He's already personally liable, but you wouldn't go after him directly anyway.  You'd just sue Twitter every time Trump said something you don't like, alleging that Twitter is vicariously liable for his statements because they allow him to make them.  It would soon cost too much to host such a toxic person and they'd get rid of him.  Finally they'd have the excuse they need!


By he I meant nool for posts on here, inartfully put I know


----------



## CatParty (Oct 6, 2020)

He should just make his own site to say whatever he wants


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 6, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> Go ask some Chinese citizens how well nationalizing media was for them. By the way nothing happened on June 4th 1989.


If Facebook was nationalized, the US government actually couldn't remove things from it because of the 1st amendment.

It would be insanely based, unlike China america has a constitution that protects its citizen's liberties. At least for now.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Oct 6, 2020)

I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.


----------



## Xerxes IX (Oct 6, 2020)

Lol Orange Man Mad at Twitter but if 230 does get repealed, guaranteed they will find a reason to ban him.


----------



## lolwatagain (Oct 6, 2020)

Found the text of the Gabbard-Gosard bill


			https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gosar_275_xml.pdf
		


LoC is slow as shit.

Edit:
Kennedy submitted a companion bill in the senate


			https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/0/a04b045c-137c-4de7-81e7-986c528deb2f/0EF0F242F81CD53A7BAD43432E6E4C57.don-t-push-my-buttons-act.pdf
		


Here are the other proposals


			https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3983/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22230%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1
		









						Text - H.R.7808 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop the Censorship Act of 2020
					

Text for H.R.7808 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop the Censorship Act of 2020



					www.congress.gov
				











						Text - S.4062 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stopping Big Tech's Censorship Act
					

Text for S.4062 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stopping Big Tech's Censorship Act



					www.congress.gov
				











						Text - S.4534 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act
					

Text for S.4534 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act



					www.congress.gov
				











						Text - H.R.8517 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protect Speech Act
					

Text for H.R.8517 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protect Speech Act



					www.congress.gov


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> The boomer GEOTUS wanted to leave the hospital JUST to post some stupid shit on Twitter. Then try to repeal Section 230 WHILE denying Coronavirus.


I don't think you understand.

Even if he was in a medically induced coma, he'd still be tweeting.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Dante Alighieri said:


> I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.





You say that NOW. But if he actually follows through with it, you won't be able to freely praise Trump on this site.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> View attachment 1645171
> 
> You say that NOW. But if he actually follows through with it, you won't be able to freely praise Trump on this site.


Trump can't do jack shit to 230. This is a stupid argument that's been rehashed a handful of times on the farms. If the content now already doesn't violate any law then the content isn't anything anybody is liable for, least of all Josh.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

CatParty said:


> He should just make his own site to say whatever he wants


280.gov would kick ass



Dante Alighieri said:


> I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.


Except, as I predicted, Trump's tweets have led to more than 5 different proposals that are working their way through congress right now that will either make hosting a website more annoying or totally obliterate one of its most important protections for normal people. He is definitely causing this.

I see we're doing this "Trump is literally too retarded to do that" defense of Trump every time he threatens to do something profoundly retarded.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Oct 6, 2020)

Now that I think about it, what _was_ the point of the "Repeal 230!" threat, if it was at minimum expressly for Trump's personal gain? Its repeal ensures the death of any kind of non-advertisement speech, which necessarily includes his bizarro Fireside chats. Making a threat to get it repealed could rattle Big Tech, but how efficacious would it be when they realize that it hurts everyone, including every single politician?


----------



## Totally Awesome (Oct 6, 2020)

How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people?  Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

Totally Awesome said:


> How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people?  Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?


Yes. This is legal strongarming, not actually trying to address the issue. It is literally identical in temperment to Greer's lawsuit where he just says "this website says mean things about me, so it shouldn't be protected by CDA Section 230". Twitter deleted two of my tweets today, so revoke 230!


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> Now that I think about it, what _was_ the point of the "Repeal 230!" threat, if it was at minimum expressly for Trump's personal gain? Its repeal ensures the death of any kind of non-advertisement speech, which necessarily includes his bizarro Fireside chats. Making a threat to get it repealed could rattle Big Tech, but how efficacious would it be when they realize that it hurts everyone, including every single politician?


My guess is that Trump thinks if he threatens something, it'll work in his favor. See North Korea or the Insurrection Act. That's the appeal of him. 

Trump doesn't think when he speaks, he just DOES it.


----------



## Bland Crumbs (Oct 6, 2020)

The problem is not 230 protecting blah blah blah blah muh public square. The problem is that you have companies the likes of which the world has never seen colluding to control speech and to what information people have access.

Even if you blow up 230 you still cannot sue Twitter or FB or Alphabet. They will literally bury you in lawyers at best or at worst find out that you looked up something objectionable twenty years ago and leak it to their assets in the media. The true believers will stop at nothing, including your suicide, to make sure your name is eternally marked.

The internet we currently use is never going back to the way it was and people need to accept that and adapt.

Reworking 230 is whatever...I thought it might be an answer but really it is not and I really do not see any. What power does the government really have over Alphabet, Apple, FB, Twitter etc? Send the IRS after them? The IRS could not even beat Scientology.

The solution, if there is one at all, would be to start using a separate internet but that would be slow, limited, and eventually corrupted anyway and likely by the same players.

If you told me in the 1990's that leftist ideologues would be the cause of internet censorship I would have laughed myself to death...

Also you think mail in ballots are a problem? Wait until Google is handling your ballot...


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 6, 2020)

Get ready for the inevitable anti-semitism exemption/amendment, unanimous bipartisan support of course. Prez Kushner already doesn’t believe speech critical of Israel should be protected (remember his executive order about muh BDS on college campuses?).


----------



## Pissmaster (Oct 6, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> I don't think you understand.
> 
> Even if he was in a medically induced coma, he'd still be tweeting.


He's gonna use Elon Musk's brain thing to keep shitposting

"Just had a dream I was a giant and stomped Harris into the ground.  I'm King Kong and you're a loser!"


----------



## Jack Awful (Oct 6, 2020)

Totally Awesome said:


> How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people?  Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?


I think Trump just hates that Jack hid his Tweet and wants to scorched Earth the internet as revenge while also being ignorant that the internet exists beyond big tech.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Bland Crumbs said:


> Even if you blow up 230 you still cannot sue Twitter or FB or Alphabet. They will literally bury you in lawyers at best or at worst find out that you looked up something objectionable twenty years ago and leak it to their assets in the media. The true believers will stop at nothing, including your suicide, to make sure your name is eternally marked.


So Trump AND Big Tech will become literal dictators with this move. Monopolizing free expression online so to speak. 


Jack Awful said:


> I think Trump just hates that Jack hid his Tweet and wants to scorched Earth the internet as revenge while also being ignorant that the internet exists beyond big tech.


Like I said, he got triggered.


----------



## MelloYello (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Tulsi's amendment is literally fucking worthless but it just goes to show I was right and any attempt to touch 230 is resulting in vultures coming out the woodworks to take their own shots at carving out shit.



Hm. I know you're very protective of 230, but what do you make of the argument that Marsh v. Alabama ought to apply to sufficiently large platforms, as the digital equivalent of a "Company town"?
The difference between government censorship, and an oligopoly of 4 or 5 companies controlling the limits of public discourse, seems rather miniscule.
The internet is, for all intents and purposes, already a public utility.

It seems to me that such regulation could be implemented while leaving 230 intact. Right now, it just happens to be Trump's favourite cudgel to threaten Twitter with.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Trump doesn't think when he speaks, he just DOES it.



I would have agreed with this a few years ago, but I dunno now. He's either a decent strategic thinker or he has a natural 20 luck. I'm not saying he's got a good idea on 230, just he's not as reactionary as people think. Almost everyone in DC are retarded about the Internet because they're boomers.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Dante Alighieri said:


> I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.





Dante Alighieri said:


> Trump can't do jack shit to 230. This is a stupid argument that's been rehashed a handful of times on the farms. If the content now already doesn't violate any law then the content isn't anything anybody is liable for, least of all Josh.


Stop being libertarian.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Oct 6, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Stop being libertarian.
> View attachment 1645208


Over my cold, dead, body.


----------



## Jack Awful (Oct 6, 2020)

Reminder that Biden also wants to revoke 230, but because "muh hate speech", so we're fucked in November.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> I'm not saying he's got a good idea on 230, just he's not as reactionary as people think.


Disagree with you on that point because as soon as Twitter put a disclaimer about his Coronavirus, he immediately reacted with "REPEAL SECTION 230!" 


Shield Breaker said:


> Almost everyone in DC are retarded about the Internet because they're boomers.


That's MY line. RBG, Trump and now Biden is proof that America needs to stop relying on baby boomers to regulate a 21st century, first world country.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> Reminder that Biden also wants to revoke 230, but because "muh hate speech", so we're fucked in November.


Yes. Now that Trump has opened Pandora's Box here every politican is developing their own posion to this, which is what nool feared would happen in the first place. Expect a 'bipartisan' bill in a year or two that actually nukes or guts 230.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 6, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> Reminder that Biden also wants to revoke 230, but because "muh hate speech", so we're fucked in November.



Republicans love signaling about how anti-racist they are, so expect a race to the bottom on how many exemptions to 230 protections they can make to own the libs (especially anything to do with criticism of Israel).


----------



## Dark Edea (Oct 6, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> They're just saying it won't have negative consequences because they are being tribalistic and don't want to say Trump is doing something wrong here.


Also I think they think senpai Null will notice them if they pretend to want to destroy the internet.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> Republicans love signaling about how anti-racist they are,


Not even anti-racist, they don't even care about racism unless it's to point out their contributions to Blacks in America. Which I'll seemingly support over this "anything and everything is racist" mentality.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Not even anti-racist, they don't even care about racism unless it's to point out their contributions to Blacks in America. Which I'll seemingly support over this "anything and everything is racist" mentality.


I disagree, they virtue signal even when it is politcally negative for them enough that I think they legitimately get upset at being called racist and feel the need to "prove" that they are not instead of just focusing on policy and ignoring it.


----------



## Big Meaty Claws (Oct 6, 2020)

Man I can't wait to have a billion dollar corp tell me what to say and do on the internet or get raped to death by there "Collectors" when payment for that naughty word I said five years ago comes up. Or have all my votes be online, and for SOME REASON have only the democrat candidate win everytime, or be required to buy a internet pass to use the internet for a week while also paying for internet at home. 

I fucking hope this doesn't get nuked, its the only thing holding back corporate shitheads from basically raping the internet.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Disagree with you on that point because as soon as Twitter put a disclaimer about his Coronavirus, he immediately reacted with "REPEAL SECTION 230!"
> 
> That's MY line. RBG, Trump and now Biden is proof that America needs to stop relying on baby boomers to regulate a 21st century, first world country.



Yet I saw right wingers and doomers bitching constantly about Trump not doing anything about them getting yeeted off social media for years prior. He's also been autistic about slander and libel laws needing to be strengthened for years. So, did he get triggered or did he jump on the chance he'd been waiting for the retards at Silicon Valley to hand him?


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Oct 6, 2020)

The way I see it, REPEAL 230 is Trump’s way of saying that us newfags will probably get the short end of the stick, and we’ll need to find other ways to make sure speech on the Internet is both free and objective. Also, the laws surrounding this seem very vague and cagey at best, but we do need more Cybersecurity, Data Science and IT professionals in our government.

I think the 2020’s will seek a change for new upcoming Presidents to have technological abilities that Washington D.C. has never seen before, but then again I’m being optimistic.


----------



## Dark Edea (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Not even anti-racist, they don't even care about racism unless it's to point out their contributions to Blacks in America. Which I'll seemingly support over this "anything and everything is racist" mentality.


Better to know where someone stands than to befriend a snake.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 6, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Yes. Now that Trump has opened Pandora's Box here every politican is developing their own posion to this, which is what nool feared would happen in the first place. Expect a 'bipartisan' bill in a year or two that actually nukes or guts 230.


Why wait that long? they'll probably try to fast track it almost immediately. What's another tire to add to the fire that is 2020?

But I fear for the bigger picture: If Trump or Biden does this shit, it'll easily set a precedent that may, and likely will, inspire other countries to follow suit. And we already know the UK Parliament is already jizzing themselves twelve times over due to this.


----------



## Canned Bread (Oct 6, 2020)

albertbrown26 said:


> I think the 2020’s will seek a change for new upcoming Presidents to have technological abilities that Washington D.C. has never seen before, but then again I’m being optimistic.



If Trump wins: Seems fairly unlikely, but I guess it could happen.
If Biden wins: No chance in hell this is happening.


----------



## Robert James (Oct 6, 2020)

The internet as we knew it has been dying for the past 6 years, it's not coming back we are all on borrowed time. Soon like everything else it will become, cold, sterile, and worthless. On the bright side if orange man nukes the internet TDS will make everyone realize it was a bad idea. If it's joe/kamala every news source would declare it another victory and the common man will see it as a necesary action to keep us safe like the mask or the patriot act.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 6, 2020)

Canned Bread said:


> If Trump wins: Seems fairly unlikely, but I guess it could happen.
> If Biden wins: No chance in hell this is happening.


If anyone in their age group wins it’s just gonna be boomers ruining everything


----------



## likeacrackado (Oct 6, 2020)

No matter who wins free speech on the internet is fucked.  Its only a matter of time before whats happening in Europe and on major sites spreads and becomes government enforced across the entire West(already kinda is).  Whether or not the President knows how the internet works is irrelevant, plenty of tech people are full blown in support for going after free expression. It sucks, but maybe under Trump itll hurt silicon valley people.


----------



## Absolute Brainlet (Oct 6, 2020)

Y'know, I'm usually one of the few people in here that tell everyone else to chill out and stop acting like doomer chimps. But now even I am starting to get worried


----------



## LurkTrawl (Oct 6, 2020)

So he goes after 230 instead of the banks.

Can really tell his love for Israel.


----------



## Longjack Attack (Oct 6, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> Now that I think about it, what _was_ the point of the "Repeal 230!" threat, if it was at minimum expressly for Trump's personal gain? Its repeal ensures the death of any kind of non-advertisement speech, which necessarily includes his bizarro Fireside chats. Making a threat to get it repealed could rattle Big Tech, but how efficacious would it be when they realize that it hurts everyone, including every single politician?


_"B-B-B-B-But his 4d chess movz is in full effect goiis.

"Cmon trust in da plan. duuurrrrr."_


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Many sites will just leave, but remember the individuals who own those sites who are American will still be liable, so to truly leave you'd also have to renounce your citizenship.


Of course, if not being even remotely subject to American law was enough to escape it, Julian Assange wouldn't have been unlawfully detained for a decade now.


Dante Alighieri said:


> I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.


Ah, yes, the good old 'Trump usually does nothing after bombastically claiming he will (which is an average of sometimes doing bad things and never doing good things)' argument. Very sound


----------



## Rupert Bear (Oct 6, 2020)

Angry Shoes said:


> Also most faggots proposing we get rid of 230 use super-popular normie sites anyways. They don't care about smaller sites like us.





AnOminous said:


> Which is why they'll destroy us without even thinking about it, because the consequences of their stupidity don't matter enough for them even to care about them at all.  They'll just slap a minor regulatory cost on the big boys while killing the little boys outright.


Funny coming from the same types of people who complain about the "big companies leaving no room for the small guys"


----------



## Dededon't (Oct 6, 2020)

Absolute Brainlet said:


> Y'know, I'm usually one of the few people in here that tell everyone else to chill out and stop acting like doomer chimps. But now even I am starting to get worried


I've also always been fairly optimstic, and still am to some extent, mostly because giving in to despair and giving up is no way to live your life. If it's anything to ease the mind, I think _if_ some form of change happens with 230, it at least won't happen for a long while. The government is often pretty slow about making significant changes.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Billy Rocker said:


> Funny coming from the same types of people who complain about the "big companies leaving no room for the small guys"


Those are not mutually exclusive statments though.
Nevermind you were arguing the other way, I am being dumb.


----------



## TheShedCollector (Oct 6, 2020)

Nothing any of these people do will make 230 better than it already is and they need to leave it the fuck alone.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Dededon't said:


> I've also always been fairly optimstic, and still am to some extent, mostly because giving in to despair and giving up is no way to live your life. If it's anything to ease the mind, I think _if_ some form of change happens with 230, it at least won't happen for a long while. The government is often pretty slow about making significant changes.


The trick is to just accept the worst case scenario might happen and make personal plans so the negative consquences personally hitting you are minimized. Not like your life is over the second the internet is fucked, just spend now making sure you have at least a small network of personal friends if the internet were to disapeer tomorrow.

Worst case scenario I see a second "underground" internet poping up once the main one is fully fucked.


----------



## Ponchik (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Every time Trump tweets this shit, StoneToss reposts this as a reply.
> 
> View attachment 1645059
> 
> These people really have no concept of what Section 230 does besides how it insulates Twitter from civil liability and that's all they care about. If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.


lol stonetoss beats his meat to "degenerate" trans furry girl paw porn on discord five times a day


----------



## HomerSimpson (Oct 6, 2020)

Why doesn't he just use 230 to fuck with these companies, instead of trying to ruin the internet? Seriously, just have the FTC contact them on the grounds of being a publisher, given the editorializing, then treat every post as their accepted publication. No need tp change anything.


----------



## LurkTrawl (Oct 6, 2020)

HomerSimpson said:


> Why doesn't he just use 230 to fuck with these companies, instead of trying to ruin the internet? Seriously, just have the FTC contact them on the grounds of being a publisher, given the editorializing, then treat every post as their accepted publication. No need tp change anything.



If you're of the conspiratorial mindset it might be due to him getting support from "Uniparty" congresspeople who are nominally Republican. Like Graham and that other retard.

Realistically, it's because he uses the infamous "burn it all down" method of approaching negotiation and doesn't realize the damage it's currently causing in the legislature to the very thing keeping his supporters online.


----------



## The best and greatest (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> Yes. This is legal strongarming, not actually trying to address the issue. It is literally identical in temperment to Greer's lawsuit where he just says "this website says mean things about me, so it shouldn't be protected by CDA Section 230". Twitter deleted two of my tweets today, so revoke 230!


Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 6, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


I guess the closest thing you'll get is the Trump Enslavement Syndrome thread.


----------



## King Ghidorah (Oct 6, 2020)

Rerard site owner once again acts like big whiney faggot makes mountain out of molehill


----------



## furūtsu (Oct 6, 2020)

So, if the worst case scenario comes to pass and the Internet as we know it suffers a metaphorical nuke-would there be a rise of an alternative? How would it function, and who would run it? Would it even be possible?


----------



## thismanlies (Oct 6, 2020)

Unpopular opinion: It looks like Trump is trying to get some kind of concession out of the big tech companies by threatening Section 230. Maybe he wants them to quit censoring him and his supporters, I don't know. I just know that all he's stupidly shooting himself in the foot by threatening 230. The boomers with Facebook pages might be cheering him on, but the websites who made the memes the Facebook boomers are spreading will no doubt get hurt as a result of this.


----------



## Ly Erg (Oct 6, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


Because that would lead to a slippery slope for every Politican who has said or done retarded shit.


----------



## Dr. Geronimo (Oct 6, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


Half the farm's are too busy sucking his dick


----------



## The best and greatest (Oct 6, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> I guess the closest thing you'll get is the Trump Enslavement Syndrome thread.


It'd be a life's work Documenting all  the wacky hyjinks Trump has ever gotten himself into up until  his political career. The Story of Trump-the-lolcow  is quite  amazing actually.  Its like if Moviebob was born into money and then managed to get himself into a situation that reinforced his perception of himself.


ConfederateIrishman said:


> Worst case scenario I see a second "underground" internet poping up once the main one is fully fucked.


Only more  insular this time, with cryptographic entrances and requiring that you "know someone" to even get in. Kiwifarms is replacing the FreeMasons.



Ly Erg said:


> Because that would lead to a slippery slope for every Politican who has said or done retarded shit.


I  dunno, arguably we  already do  that with  people like Brianna Wu or Carl of Applebees, and  just  given  what  a character Trump  is and what kind of  stupid shit he  sometimes gets involved in  I think he's a bit  different  from a boring stiff like Anthony wiener.


----------



## Jones McCann (Oct 6, 2020)

albertbrown26 said:


> I think the 2020’s will seek a change for new upcoming Presidents to have technological abilities that Washington D.C. has never seen before, but then again I’m being optimistic.


We may actually get a president that knows how to open a pdf file, imagine the shock.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

furūtsu said:


> So, if the worst case scenario comes to pass and the Internet as we know it suffers a metaphorical nuke-would there be a rise of an alternative? How would it function, and who would run it? Would it even be possible?



If the so-called "dark web" got easier to use and on top of that you had to use it even to talk about shit, it would probably become more popular, especially if it also became edgy and subversive to use it at all, rather than if you even mention it, you must be a drug dealing child pornographer laundering money to support terrorism.


----------



## HomerSimpson (Oct 6, 2020)

LurkTrawl said:


> If you're of the conspiratorial mindset it might be due to him getting support from "Uniparty" congresspeople who are nominally Republican. Like Graham and that other retard.
> 
> Realistically, it's because he uses the infamous "burn it all down" method of approaching negotiation and doesn't realize the damage it's currently causing in the legislature to the very thing keeping his supporters online.


Not to mention some of his supporteds are retards encouraging it not realizing that if 230 is repealed, they are banned in a heart beat.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Oct 6, 2020)

Ly Erg said:


> Because that would lead to a slippery slope for every Politican who has said or done retarded shit.



So, all of them?



Bunny Tracks said:


> It would get locked immediately because all his retard supporters would derail it instantly.



It'd get locked because his supporters and a-logs would make it unreadable.


----------



## Bunny Tracks (Oct 6, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


It would get locked immediately because all his retard supporters would derail it instantly.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 6, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> -snip-


@ConfederateIrishman said that not me. What's with these broken quotes?


----------



## Ly Erg (Oct 6, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> So, all of them?


Exactly. Especially if we go worldwide with it.


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Oct 6, 2020)

Pissmaster said:


> Come to think of it, they really do see the internet like cable TV packages, don't they?


>Someone/Somegroups want to turn the internet like cable TV Packages.
Now where have i heard that before?


----------



## byuu (Oct 6, 2020)

CatParty said:


> He should just make his own site to say whatever he wants


That useless boomers can't even imagine the possibility of publishing a short piece of text on the internet without the Twitter app, his nephew had to install on his phone.
He's convinced that as a millionaire and leader of the free world he is helpless against Twitter.


----------



## The best and greatest (Oct 6, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> @ConfederateIrishman said that not me. What's with these broken quotes?


Just me being a tard, fixed  I think...


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 6, 2020)

Dededon't said:


> Why doesnt the president have a cowpage?


To be honest: because the TES thread already exists with all of it's pros ans cons.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...



I've changed my mind. I don't want him to survive his Bat soup infection slowly and painfully any more, i want him to fucking croak from it.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

SSF2T Old User said:


> >Someone/Somegroups want to turn the internet like cable TV Packages.
> Now where have i heard that before?
> View attachment 1645451View attachment 1645453


Pay MORE money to bypass an artificial paywall just to access websites you were able to BEFORE because of "muh bandwidth."

Yet electing a boomer businessman is good for this country.

GTFO; y'all are just as bad as electing neoliberals or neoconservatives these past 25 years.


----------



## JoshPlz (Oct 6, 2020)

He should just van the twitter ceo's antifa ass to guantanamo and be done with it, instead of ruining the Internet for everyone.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2020)

The Un-Clit said:


> I've changed my mind. I don't want him to survive his Bat soup infection slowly and painfully any more, i want him to fucking croak from it.


As retarded as he is on this, Biden thinks the same thing, probably not as a strong arm tactic, and a Biden administration would be able to pass it.


----------



## Celebrate Nite (Oct 6, 2020)

Chiri said:


> Let's not forget that this all started because Twitter put a fucking naughty sticker on one of his Tweets. Twitter is shit but his reaction to the disclaimer that can easily be ignored was completely overblown and now we're stuck with the consequences forever.


GRANTED, Trump's reaction is retarded and he really should be going after the individual companies that are doing stupid shit, but let's not pretend Twitter is innocent in all of this either.  Tech companies have had their inflated egos grow larger with each passing year, and people have been sucking it up and just dealing with it for quite some time, mostly because they don't have the kind of power to fuck with them back.  It's one thing to tweet "go fuck yourself" to the president, because its just words and you're expressing your right to free speech.  It's another thing entirely when you are taking away the power for the President to post something because your guidelines are so fucking ass-backwards that it's so fucking obvious the site has a political bias.

All these companies SHOULD have a mandatory tard-wrangler to keep their asses in line from time to time.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> As retarded as he is on this, Biden thinks the same thing, probably not as a strong arm tactic, and a Biden administration would be able to pass it.


Well, it was nice knowing you Internet.

Maybe if we're lucky, Biden will go full dementia and forget this even exists.

I despise both of them with a passion.


----------



## D̥̜̖͗͆̿E̼̰VÔ̦Ȗ̟̹̮͊͋R͊̒ (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


Fuck it let's just shut down the internet altogether it's done nothing good for us.


----------



## Jack Awful (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> As retarded as he is on this, Biden thinks the same thing, probably not as a strong arm tactic, and a Biden administration would be able to pass it.


Ideally, TDS would come into play and the liberals would rush to defend 230 out of spite for Trump, but that isn't happening.

Best case is "we need the ability to censor conspiracy theories like QAnon!"


----------



## Scratch This Nut (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


Maybe my mom was right and Trump does have dementia. Which is awful because I have been mocking a senile old man during his last good years.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> As retarded as he is on this, Biden thinks the same thing, probably not as a strong arm tactic, and a Biden administration would be able to pass it.



Both parties want to do this, the only reason they haven't already is they want to do it for different reasons.  The only thing stopping it currently is they are too stupid and busy swordfighting with their dicks to actually do anything at all, much less this.


----------



## The Whore of Babylon (Oct 6, 2020)

lmfao #winning


----------



## Shield Breaker (Oct 6, 2020)

I don't see anything happening until after the election. Trump has bat AIDS, the Republicans are trying to get the Catholic lady confirmed, and the Democrats are busy harvesting ballots. What happens AFTER the election, I don't know, because things keep getting crazier, and I don't know if anyone is going to be looking at it while both parties are screaming and possibly rioting.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 6, 2020)

Section 230 wasn't meant to protect publications pushing libel. If kf encourages and hosts libelous material, and makes efforts to prevent that libelous material from being removed or corrected, that's not a free speech issue.



HomerSimpson said:


> Not to mention some of his supporteds are retards encouraging it not realizing that if 230 is repealed, they are banned in a heart beat.


(We're already getting banned in a heartbeat, that's why this came up in the first place).


----------



## Unassuming Local Guy (Oct 6, 2020)

Good heavens is it "the internet is definitely literally ending forever this time" o'clock again already?  Where _does_ the day go?


----------



## X Prime (Oct 6, 2020)

It seems to me that this problem will simply go away once Jack Dorsey bends the knee like the whore he is.

So, if anything, it's Dorsey who should be blamed for this because he can't seem to control his employees from doing stupid shit. It is dumb to provoke government officials, what do you expect to happen?


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

The Whore of Babylon said:


> lmfao #winning





AnOminous said:


> Both parties want to do this, the only reason they haven't already is they want to do it for different reasons.  The only thing stopping it currently is they are too stupid and busy swordfighting with their dicks to actually do anything at all, much less this.


We're fucked either way. So who REALLY wins?


----------



## The Whore of Babylon (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> We're fucked either way. So who REALLY wins?


people like me who dont live in your shithole country lmao


----------



## Harbinger of Kali Yuga (Oct 6, 2020)

To be honest, part of me feels like the internet and culture is so beyond redemption, this may be a good thing--hurting the internet. Hold on, before you rate me dumb, I'm not really committed to this, just something I think about time to time.  Can the internet be fixed?  I feel like the internet has caused the downfall of our culture.  Everything went corporate and juvenile once the web went totally mainstream.  I kind of feel like it needs to die so human relationships can begin to repair.

Everything is almost de facto destroyed by censorship anyway right down to political forces leaning on payment processors.  Is there any hope?  Please tell me there is.

But yeah, the retards saying this is 4D Trump Chess will probably end up saying, if Trump loses the election, it was all part of his master plan and he really owned the libs by losing.


----------



## X Prime (Oct 6, 2020)

Harbinger of Kali Yuga said:


> Everything is almost de facto destroyed by censorship anyway right down to political forces leaning on payment processors.  Is there any hope?  Please tell me there is.



2016 Bernie was the closest thing to hope, except he was a sheepdog/fake candidate to boost Hillary until he realized he could taste power. Hence him transforming into 2020 Super Idpol Bernie, which was powerful but ill-suited to today's US politics.

So, honestly? No. There really isn't any hope. Not a single candidate I can think of wants to do anything about the financial system. Closest thing is Trump saying to audit the Fed, which is not the same thing.

Everything is totally fucked, and we have Twitter employees being imbeciles to thank for throwing a lit match on the California-tier plant growth.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 6, 2020)

X Prime said:


> Hence him transforming into 2020 Super Idpol Bernie, which was powerful but ill-suited to today's US politics.


Trump sure seemed to do fine playing the Idpol card.


----------



## HomerSimpson (Oct 6, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> (We're already getting banned in a heartbeat, that's why this came up in the first place).


The difference is they will have to ban you in accordance to the law. If they are held liable for posts on their sites, they will ban everyone aside from bots that just share news articles. Which will have their comment sections turned off. Every site in america that has user comments will find it easier to ban everyone rather than have the required moderation staff.


----------



## NulWillBecomeTranny (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001



Who cares? can anyone explain in 230 words or less why I should care about some internet law when we're less than a year away from the apocopylse.


----------



## Sperghetti (Oct 6, 2020)

HomerSimpson said:


> The difference is they will have to ban you in accordance to the law. If they are held liable for posts on their sites, they will ban everyone aside from bots that just share news articles. Which will have their comment sections turned off. Every site in america that has user comments will find it easier to ban everyone rather than have the required moderation staff.



Yep. The only thing getting rid of 230 would do is get rid of _all_ places where the average user could post anything, because it would be too much of a liability for the host to keep them going. In other words, eliminate the very thing that made the internet different from pretty much any other form of media in the first place. Sure, Twitter will be gone, but we'd be left with an internet where all the content comes from the same handful of media companies that already own everything else.


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Oct 6, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Both parties want to do this, the only reason they haven't already is they want to do it for different reasons.  The only thing stopping it currently is they are too stupid and busy swordfighting with their dicks to actually do anything at all, much less this.


Do you think this is realistically the only way to avoid a repeal of Section 230? Have each chamber of Congress be a different party so one will oppose a Bill on principle because it came from Trump or Biden? 

Could whatever Bill that gets introduced in Congress be so watered down and stuffed full of legal nonsense to appeal to both parties that it is unenforceable and you need to jump through 10 flaming hoops to get anything done?  

Or is everything screwed either way?


----------



## benutz (Oct 6, 2020)

IT'S REALLY HABBENING ISN'T IT?

They've really MASTERED TEH INTERNETZ!

This day was always going to come. And if it hasn't come now it will come around the corner. They've been financially abusing people who have donated to wrongthink websites for several years, not just cutting off the payment processing to the people at the top. The whole lot of us have  been data raped and privacy raped to high heaven and back. This is just more of the same: control, power, and mastering those that disagree with you and even those that might disagree with you one day. 

Mastering the Internet.

It's almost here. I made a quip yesterday about a website called 'arrse' and about this place too. I made the comment that this place (and arrse) won't exist in a  couple of years time. That was being generous. If we/they do exist, it will be in a mighty different form.

There aren't many places where you can say the word 'nigger' on the internet and still have a semi-coherent conversation. This is one of the few left.

So many twists and turns. Who would be an oracle and predict the future? No one can. The internet moves too fast. Laws move even faster, and no one, repeat no one, knows what the fuck is going on. Who could have predicted half the shit they have brought about that has affected ALL of us in our day to day internet usage. It's over. It's been over for a while. We've just been picking on the bones of  a dead corpse. Plus, they just move the fucking goalposts or just pull the rug out from under it all if it suits them. That's what power is. Being able to do what the fuck you want and no one, not even the rest of the population of planet earth can fucking stop you.

As for Trump. Let's get one thing straight good buddies. Just because someone posts Trump memes and just because they get annoyed by TDS in their friends and family, does not mean they support Trump outright. I've said I support him, but I don't really. Not being disingenuous. I couldn't give a fuck. He doesn't give a fuck about me. Then again, he makes no difference to my life and it's pretty sweet winding up those that go rabid at the mention of his name, and say that anyone who doesn't think he should should be killed is a shill and blind supporter. Trump was a joke that got out of hand. Some of us are just going along with it. 

So far he hasn't started any world wars. But give it time. There's as much chance of him cleaning up the streets when he (if he) gets back in as there is of him starting a WWIII with Iran or WTF. It works both ways. Up till now the joke has been pretty funny. But come next election and the coming years, we will see what happens. It won't be good no matter what. For different reasons. There will be hell to pay if he gets back in, and also if he doesn't. So yeah, fuck Trump, even though I still support him (kind of). The poster that said he was voted in because of desperation got it right. It's as simple and as mundane as that. Trump will betray anyone and everyone if it suits his purposes. 

As for this internet bullshit, get used to it - it's been a long time coming. And if this one fails, then there's a new corner to turn to be blindsided by later, with more goalposts being moved and rugs to be pulled from under us/you.

I post like every day is my last here at the farms. Because I fucking RELISH this place. And too many of you motherfuckers just take it for granted. They are coming for us. They are coming for all of us. And when this ends, it will all fucking end. There will be no alternative. If you made any friends along the way, then get an email addy or whatever, NOW. You won't even be able to negrate spergs like me when shit goes down, because the infrastructure just won't exist any more. Something new will take its place, but probably not straight away. It will be the end of an era.



Spoiler: Nothing ever lasts forever...












Glad I couldn't be of use!


----------



## Pina Colada (Oct 6, 2020)

NulWillBecomeTranny said:


> Who cares? can anyone explain in 230 words or less why I should care about some internet law when we're less than a year away from the apocopylse.


You should care because it’s a threat to all free speech online. To sum it up, KF and many other sites would have to shut down, leave the country, or install firewalls because if someone said “fag”, “nigger”, or “kike” (be it ironically or unironically), Null would consequently be held responsible by the law.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 6, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> Do you think this is realistically the only way to avoid a repeal of Section 230?



It's the only realistic way to prevent Congress from doing all the dumb shit it does whenever it's actually capable of doing anything, not just fucking up § 230.  Gridlock isn't a bug, it's a feature.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Harbinger of Kali Yuga said:


> Can the internet be fixed? I feel like the internet has caused the downfall of our culture. Everything went corporate and juvenile once the web went totally mainstream. I kind of feel like it needs to die so human relationships can begin to repair.


Interesting point. I suppose the Internet started to go downhill when everybody started associating their personal identities online along with Internet access being more accessible and dependent thanks to smartphones and the like.

Internet was a revolutionary human invention that we've taken for granted nowadays. There's still good to be had from the World Wide Web, but everybody is fighting against it. Adults in power that don't understand how it works, and the younger crowd that abuses it beyond recognition.


----------



## Sperghetti (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Interesting point. I suppose the Internet started to go downhill when everybody started associating their personal identities online along with Internet access being more accessible and dependent thanks to smartphones and the like.
> 
> Internet was a revolutionary human invention that we've taken for granted nowadays. There's still good to be had from the World Wide Web, but everybody is fighting against it. Adults in power that don't understand how it works, and the younger crowd that abuses it beyond recognition.



That's been my feeling, too. The internet wasn't too bad of a thing, generally speaking, when most people considered it a separate realm from your everyday personal life, that could be entered and left at any time. (And _should_ be left occasionally, for your own good.) And that coincided with more difficult access to it. The real damage started being done when people started seeing internet activity as something inherently linked with their personal life, and easy access to it as a right. 

And to be fair, I don't think the younger crowd really understands how it works, either. If more people did, there wouldn't be so many people with such a hateboner for sites like KF.


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (Oct 6, 2020)

And this is why I fucking hate Boomers who use technology. They don't understand it but feel they're able to somehow govern it. 

Lest I remind any of you, this is what you get when you put an old man in charge of something he doesn't understand.


----------



## Tito from Rocket Power (Oct 6, 2020)

What implications does this have for KF? Will Null shut down the farms?


----------



## pwnest injun (Oct 6, 2020)

Totally Awesome said:


> How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people?  Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?


It's more of a "if that mountain falls on me, it's going to fall on you too," sort of situation.


----------



## Toilet Grenade (Oct 6, 2020)

The U.S has been burning for so long that I don't feel anything. It's just like a real life burn.


----------



## Uncle Warren (Oct 6, 2020)

It's  -tier shit but I honestly believe this is just a big fat fucking nothing burger, just like everything else they were trying to pass. Only difference is it most likely won't pass anyway cause Trump's name is backing it.


----------



## Was (Oct 6, 2020)

these same (((people))) sunk the titanic, killed Abe Lincoln and JFK and who knows what else over it.  It's (((their))) system and ((their))) laws and if you can't even get a job coding hentai


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 6, 2020)

thismanlies said:


> Unpopular opinion: It looks like Trump is trying to get some kind of concession out of the big tech companies by threatening Section 230. Maybe he wants them to quit censoring him and his supporters, I don't know. I just know that all he's stupidly shooting himself in the foot by threatening 230. The boomers with Facebook pages might be cheering him on, but the websites who made the memes the Facebook boomers are spreading will no doubt get hurt as a result of this.


I hope this is just another bout of misguided saber-rattling. But considering how Twitter and Facebook aren't exactly helping their cases by censoring his posts while letting worse ones about death, sex and other shit that should be bannable offenses like doommongering and spamming stay up. He's not going to let this go until he scorches the digital landscape and everyone in it, even if it means his own accounts are affected too because he has no idea how this stuff works.



Cuddly Pirate said:


> It's  -tier shit but I honestly believe this is just a big fat fucking nothing burger, just like everything else they were trying to pass. Only difference is it most likely won't pass anyway cause Trump's name is backing it.


This isn't just Trump who wants to do this. Biden does too, and so do many other members in the senate. Trump or no Trump, they're going to want to get this thing passed. And that's reason enough to worry, We've already had to deal with the MPAA and the FCC trying to fuck the internet over with their proposed bills, and now we got to deal with the advertisers and butthurt site owners who also want to harm the internet for their own gains. This is literally just the same shit, different story, the only difference is that they very well could succeed this time and there'd be nothing anyone could do to stop it. And like I said before, other countries who haven't followed Europe or China's practices could easily be inspired by what the US is doing and adopt their own takes on internet censorship.


----------



## Mr Sister (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


I'm a bit drunk so I'm going to comment even though I should keep my mouth shut and read since I don't know what I'm talking about
But this amendment sounds good? Tulsi seems like she has a vendetta against facebook/twitter for manipulating what posts users see for the companies' profit from ads/engagement and political motivation. Null saying it "will realistically only result in more GDPR-essque notifications that help fucking nothing" does open my eyes a bit though... So how could this legislation be fixed? Maybe it doesn't need to be fixed, but you can't deny how much facebook and twitter are influencing politics by what posts the make users see, so I think it does


----------



## 2021Murder (Oct 6, 2020)

Regardless of what happens i think @Null should be forced to invite us all to his wedding. Like a shitty made-for-tv movie for a series that ended. It will be a reason for us all to get together one last time.


----------



## Hubert J Catterwall (Oct 6, 2020)

Always stay mad Clinton bootlickers <3


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

TerminalCancow said:


> Always stay mad Clinton bootlickers <3


And what does SHE have to do with this?


----------



## Neil (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


This man is high as fuck on rona treatments and shooting off a billion different things on twitter all at once, every hour on the hour.
It's pathetic as fuck that the sitting president of the United States would even need to get into this kind of gay legislative war with a site like Twitter.


Troonos said:


> I'd agree with you, but 99% the site's users are retarded zealots who believe Trump is without fault, and I don't feel like spending my day off arguing with faggots.


Summerfag/corona-time newfags were the worst thing to happen to this site.


----------



## Jolyne THICCujoh (Oct 6, 2020)

I feel as if I should be more anxious and worried about this but strangely....I'm not. Call me an idiot for saying this, but I'm sort of used to people trying to wrestle over shit for political gain and in the end it usually ends up like this for them quick.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Oct 6, 2020)

I really wish Trump would just drop this altogether and concern himself with bigger problems than Twatter fucking with him, but that would mean he'd have to sort out some imminent threat that couldn't be ignored. China, maybe?


----------



## Sissy (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


Yeah null you figured it out, its all his fault


----------



## 三字经 (Oct 6, 2020)

Strong Tranni Role Model said:


> Yeah null you figured it out, its all his fault


The president of the most powerful country in the world actively wants to shoot his country in the foot. It doesn't really matter whose fault it is, he's still loading ammo in the shotgun. He's a mad boomer who actively wants to ruin things he doesn't understand because he can't get his way


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> I really wish Trump would just drop this altogether and concern himself with bigger problems than Twatter fucking with him, but that would mean he'd have to sort out some imminent threat that couldn't be ignored. China, maybe?


Twitter is life. Twitter is Trump. What are you, an idiot?


----------



## Bear Ass (Oct 6, 2020)

With all this going on with the internet in the last couple of years, I can only keep thinking of what happened to Usenet back in the day. Started off as a neat place for computer weirdos and general nerds to hang out, then came the influx of normies from colleges and elsewhere, due to the popularity the place tried and failed to become more corporate ISP-friendly after legal intervention and censorship. People just jumped ship to the Web in the end. 

It's the life cycle of any wide-scale communication platform: begins as a platform with a high difficulty of entry or low popularity (or both) -> becomes more widely used -> begins to decline to cater to those who would object to certain freedoms of expression i.e. corporations and government -> gets abandoned for a new niche place with high difficulty/low popularity.

We'll just have to make our spergwatcher niche website elsewhere on a new network protocol, somewhere like IPFS, or Yggdrasil, or Zeronet or all these newfangled things popping up. The downside is that none of these options are either totally ready for widescale use, or not suited to the needs of this kind of website without a massive amount of specific coding experience. Even Tor isn't always an option if it's as pozzed as people say. Imaging Null having to learn a whole new way of coding the site after putting years of work into not making this place run like shit. It's a lot to ask.

tl;dr: someone needs to look into real, functioning alternatives to the web before it's too late and we just lose a bunch of cool shit to a corporate graveyard.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Oct 6, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


What a strange world we live in where reading the words "fat faggot retard" is heartwarming and comfy because on nearly every other site, that phrase would be censored for hate speech even if it's being applied to cheeto  Hitler.

Let's hope the fat faggot retard realizes what he's doing before it's too late.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> I don't understand the end game Trump is going for.
> 
> It's THEIR site, they can do what they want with THEIR site. It's not always fair, but even the President needs to realize that he can't just say whatever, whenever he wants because people will interpret that as pure fact.
> 
> Does he understand how the Internet works? Or will he just throw a temper tantrum whenever he cannot say what he wants without consequence?



Especially when Twitter has, in their TOS, rules against posting "false information". If the tweet is proven false, they can then remove it. It's not like they're deleting his tweets willy-nilly, they're deleting the ones with false claims.


----------



## The Last Stand (Oct 6, 2020)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> Especially when Twitter has, in their TOS, rules against posting "false information". If the tweet is proven false, they can then remove it. It's not like they're deleting his tweets willy-nilly, they're deleting the ones with false claims.


It would be nice to see what Twitter classifies as "true." Like a source link.


----------



## Anja Din (Oct 6, 2020)

Trump’s just mad the courts told him he is not allowed to ban anyone from his twitter account early on.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Oct 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> It would be nice to see what Twitter classifies as "true." Like a source link.


I think they provide a source when they delete the tweet but I could be mistaken. I don't have a Twitter because Twitter is stupid and I am just a jabroni and no one cares what I think


----------



## Sissy (Oct 6, 2020)

三字经 said:


> The president of the most powerful country in the world actively wants to shoot his country in the foot. It doesn't really matter whose fault it is, he's still loading ammo in the shotgun. He's a mad boomer who actively wants to ruin things he doesn't understand because he can't get his way


HES A PUPPET OF THE FUCKING JEWS


----------



## Draza (Oct 6, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> Reminder that Biden also wants to revoke 230, but because "muh hate speech", so we're fucked in November.


Isn't Democracy wonderful?


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

SSF2T Old User said:


> >Someone/Somegroups want to turn the internet like cable TV Packages.
> Now where have i heard that before?


Daily fucking reminder that this actually fucking exists in countries like the Philippines. Philippines is the #1 consumer of social media specifically because most of them opt in to pay for the cheapest data package that only gives them access to a handful of sites, most notably Facebook. If you want to do business or order food in the Philippines, you send a message over Facebook because no one has a real website.

These aren't fucking jokes. I have seen it first hand. Hundreds of millions of people live with this realtiy. The fact it doesn't happen overnight is not cause for celebration and forgetting about the underlying issues. Trump has put a Verizon attorney as the head of the FCC and is threatening to mutilate the CDA which built the Internet and seated the US as the first and only real choice for web-based companies. The Internet will continue to get worse, speed will get more stifled, and you are complicit.


----------



## CaesarCzech (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> Every time Trump tweets this shit, StoneToss reposts this as a reply.
> 
> View attachment 1645059
> 
> These people really have no concept of what Section 230 does besides how it insulates Twitter from civil liability and that's all they care about. If they can say "nigger" on Twitter, they would let the water around them boil them alive.



We actually do its just  we are now invoking Mutually Assured Destruction.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

CaesarCzech said:


> We actually do its just  we are now invoking Mutually Assured Destruction.


Save the world the trouble and just shoot yourself instead.


----------



## CaesarCzech (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> Save the world the trouble and just shoot yourself instead.



Mutually Assured Destruction, not Hitler in a Bunker,    I foresee section 230 being repealed and then reinstated but by then it will have been too late for twitter etc such a sad thing.  It will clean up internet, as the retarded SJWs will suddenly find themselves not so eager to suck corporations dick as their fanart etc gets them in trouble, internet will be forced to disperse into smaller communities  instead of centralized, which will make it harder for SJWs  to subvert them all, it will  stop this corporation worship and turn people against them, SJWs will  be forced to calm their tits upon realisation that if they go too far we will literally burn down internet and stop them from their Yasss queen shit, it will lead growth of darknet, its going to be couple of bad years but this isnt Armaggedon but Nuclear Bombs on Japan,  its better in long term. We got plan Null, its just that we dont have Xanatos tier plan that would result in us winning without struggle.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

CaesarCzech said:


> but by then it will have been too late for twitter etc such a sad thing.


Just wrong, just a retard. Sites like mine will be the first to go. I will close the forum day one. Twitter has jews on standby to defend their interests.


----------



## CaesarCzech (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> Just wrong, just a retard. Sites like mine will be the first to go. I will close the forum day one. Twitter has jews on standby to defend their interests.



Sites like yours will be first to go because you are publicly identifiable, this will encourage smaller scattered communities instead of centralisation,  which makes it far harder for them to subvert them all.  As for Twitter, selective enforcement its time to stomp the boot on them,   i know its risky since we are betting it on 2020  and basically having 4 years to fuck them over as example, which is why i think it should only be passed after elections depending on what control we have but im for it if we managed to win 2020.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

CaesarCzech said:


> which makes it far harder for them to subvert them all


oh so you're just a schizo retard who thinks their 10 user Lain imageboard is _le resistance_. Okay, good luck institutionalizing change from your .onion url, you stupid fucking faggot.

For the KMT to keep China democratic, the first step of their master plan was having their shit pushed in all the way to a small, unassailable island. Genius.


----------



## Boobie Bomb (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> oh so you're just a schizo retard who thinks their 10 user Lain imageboard is _le resistance_. Okay, good luck institutionalizing change from your .onion url, you stupid fucking faggot.
> 
> For the KMT to keep China democratic, the first step of their master plan was having their shit pushed in all the way to a small, unassailable island. Genius.


Seems like the world is tumbling down all because silicon valley with their smarts thought banned Alex Jones during this election thinking nothing bad will ever happen to them.


----------



## Knojkamarangasan_#4 (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...



Looking through the replies once again justifies why all boomers and qtards deserves to die painfully.


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Oct 7, 2020)

I think I speak for a lot of people here in that the fact we _broadly_ prefer one side of politics over the other doesn't mean we think they're infallible. For example, I'm not anti-abortion and I think overturning _Roe v Wade_ would be a political catastrophe, but I still generally prefer Republicans to win over Democrats by a small margin, partly because I don't think that will actually happen anyway. The same goes for this. It's possible one party or the other will repeal Section 230 with catastrophic consequences because they're all a bunch of old farts who don't understand the internet, but it's also possible it will just get deadlocked and nothing will happen, and since both parties want to do something similar it doesn't affect my preferences.

Of course QAnons and other Trump fanatics like Stonetoss are retards, but they're just a very loud minority. This site leans hard to the right but even here most people aren't saying this would be a good thing.


----------



## CaesarCzech (Oct 7, 2020)

Pointless Pedant said:


> I think I speak for a lot of people here in that the fact we _broadly_ prefer one side of politics over the other doesn't mean we think they're infallible. For example, I'm not anti-abortion and I think overturning _Roe v Wade_ would be a political catastrophe, but I still generally prefer Republicans to win over Democrats by a small margin, partly because I don't think that will actually happen anyway. The same goes for this. It's possible one party or the other will repeal Section 230 with catastrophic consequences because they're all a bunch of old farts who don't understand the internet, but it's also possible it will just get deadlocked and nothing will happen, and since both parties want to do something similar it doesn't affect my preferences.
> 
> Of course QAnons and other Trump fanatics like Stonetoss are retards, but they're just a very loud minority. This site leans hard to the right but even here most people aren't saying this would be a good thing.



Or we might use 230 as DeathStar, just without firing at Alderaan.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

Who cares if they close down the internet at this point. It's already utterly ruined since we failed to pass net neutrality remember?
Should we extend 230 protections to the news business? Imagine how much more high quality reporting we'd get if the corporations couldn't be sued!


----------



## LurkTrawl (Oct 7, 2020)

"If I shoot myself the I.R.S. can't come after me for taxes!"

The problem is the banks. 230 is what people usually call a red herring, and destroying it is retarded.

If you want 230 repealed, know this: none of the people you think will be hurt by it will care one whit that it's gone and the internet will only be a shittier place for it. Supporting it because Trump does is borderline fucking idolatry if you're letting your gay-ass love for him overwrite your basic sense of self preservation in any sense that the terms "self preservation" may apply.

It's not even an argument. It's bad and what's worse is that the other party supports it too, which should set off massive fucking alarm bells. And stop comparing it to net neutrality, it's not even remotely related as a concept save for the fact that it has to do with the internet.


----------



## Rio (Oct 7, 2020)

CaesarCzech said:


> Or we might use 230 as DeathStar, just without firing at Alderaan.


It's nice to see all the stereotypes about people using the Joker as their avatar are being proven true today. There is no plan. This isn't a gambit by 4d chess experts to threaten blowing up the internet in order to get your boogiemen to stand down. This is an angry  manchild boomer who doesn't understand the internet being mad that websites are allowed to override his authority. He is not defending your rights. He's trying to massage his ego.


----------



## Was (Oct 7, 2020)

I have a solution: Delete the intenet. This shit sucks, has done nothing but waste and destoy countless human lives. Think about how liteally eveything would be infinitely bette if it neve eisted.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

Rio said:


> It's nice to see all the stereotypes about people using the Joker as their avatar are being proven true today. There is no plan. This isn't a gambit by 4d chess experts to threaten blowing up the internet in order to get your boogiemen to stand down. This is an angry  manchild boomer who doesn't understand the internet being mad that websites are allowed to override his authority. He is not defending your rights. He's trying to massage his ego.


Lol this is a wildly inaccurate take. Repealing 230 wouldn't mean websites have to do what the president tells them. 
Why do the biggest, richest companies in the world deserve immunity for things that you or I could be sued for?


----------



## Pistoleer (Oct 7, 2020)

Ok I’ll admit I’m a borderline boomer on this shit, but having read over 230 it seems like a good thing to me and not the real problem. The problem seems to be that if I want to post wrongthink online I have to do it somewhere that allows it and those places are few and far between. This doesn’t seem to be because of 230 though, It’s more that funding these places is difficult Because of biased payment processors. Am I wrong?


----------



## Rio (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Lol this is a wildly inaccurate take. Repealing 230 wouldn't mean websites have to do what the president tells them.
> Why do the biggest, richest companies in the world deserve immunity for things that you or I could be sued for?


In what way could you or I be sued for adding a little sticker to someone's statement? That's what originally set Trump on the path of complaining about article 230. He said something, twitter added a sticker that it wasn't an accurate statement, and Trump started talking about how he needed to repeal article 230 to rein back big tech. He never brought it up before then. Not once. If you think that's a coincidence and his true intention is to look out for you and your freedom of expression on the internet, I've got a bridge to sell you.

And no, you're right, that's not what repealing article 230 would do at all. That doesn't matter though because we're talking about a 74 year old boomer with a very limited understanding of technology, much less the internet. All he needs to know is that repealing 230 would hurt the companies he does not like. I'm not convinced that he knows or cares about the actual effect it would have.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> For the KMT to keep China democratic, the first step of their master plan was having their shit pushed in all the way to a small, unassailable island. Genius.


Once they collapsed and retreated to Taiwan, the chance to take back china went out the window and their only 2 options became either "somehow pressure the CCP into making their island an independent state" or "have the CCP completely fucking slaughter all the KMT loyalists and/or sabotage Tawian." So far it looks like the second option is more likely.


----------



## Trigger Me Timbers (Oct 7, 2020)

If section 230 got super fucked (like worst case scenario) would we see some companies moving headquarters to countries with better protections?


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> I see we're doing this "Trump is literally too retarded to do that" defense of Trump every time he threatens to do something profoundly retarded.



What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!

If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.


----------



## ImBatman (Oct 7, 2020)

CaesarCzech said:


> Or we might use 230 as DeathStar, just without firing at Alderaan.


Do you really think powerful people are your friends?


----------



## Danke (Oct 7, 2020)

RomanesEuntDomus said:


> Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?


Any changes to this amendment will eventually bring more. It starts slow, and turns into a snowball effect; getting larger and larger each time, until fat orange faggot man decides to push an actual repeal of Section 230


----------



## President Joe Biden (Oct 7, 2020)

Danke said:


> Any changes to this amendment will eventually bring more. It starts slow, and turns into a snowball effect; getting larger and larger each time, until fat orange faggot man decides to push an actual repeal of Section 230


Whether he is gone in a few months or a few years, Democrats have never missed an opportunity to clamp down on unpopular opinions. It won't really matter if he's gone or not, both candidates are in favor of repealing it.


----------



## LurkTrawl (Oct 7, 2020)

Exterminate Leftists said:


> Whether he is gone in a few months or a few years, Democrats have never missed an opportunity to clamp down on unpopular opinions. It won't really matter if he's gone or not, both candidates are in favor of repealing it.



It's a big club. You aren't in it, and if you have to ask it's like the thing with headlines, answer is no fam.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Oct 7, 2020)

Repealing Section 230 should be viewed as bad, whether you are liberal or conservative. The snowball effect would be a nightmare for the internet as we have it today.

Even modifications to it should be very carefully done.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Why do the biggest, richest companies in the world deserve immunity for things that you or I could be sued for?


CDA currently protects all web services equally.

There is a rumor I am being sued by Greer for alleged actions of alleged forum users. CDA Section 230 will the reason this alleged lawsuit will be dismissed without having to prove anything.


----------



## Pistoleer (Oct 7, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!
> 
> If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.


The thing is that I like Trump as a president for the most part, I’ve said so on this forum, but that doesn’t absolve him from doing monumentally retarded shit on the daily. Especially where his ego is concerned.
Honestly I wish we had better choices than an Orange boomer with a massive ego and anti-gay Thor, VS dementia addled kiddy diddler, and a corrupt cop who fucked her way to the top. 
Also I never really got the attributing a super intelligence to Trump when what he does is a pretty basic bait and switch on Liberals. 
He takes one of their sacred cows, pulls it to the side makes vaguely threatening gestures toward it. Liberals then collectively shit themselves and rush to defend it. He then slips around back to fuck with something else entirely. By the time they realize he’s fucked with something else the news cycle is over and no one cares. It’s the most basic of short cons, it’s not hard to pull off or notice when someone is pulling it off. The problem is that liberals shot themselves in the foot by being bleeding hearts and trying to come off as “champions of the down trodden” it makes them easy to run a con on if you’re willing to be an asshole.


----------



## Pointless Pedant (Oct 7, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!
> 
> If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.



What I'd say that is he's both capable of plotting things and is also a 74 year old man with no real understanding of the internet. He's not literally retarded, just someone who grew up long before the internet and doesn't have a clue how it works, just like basically every senator. People from a past era often seem incredibly stupid when it comes to new technology. Others have said that Biden also wants to meddle with the internet if elected.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Oct 7, 2020)

Pistoleer said:


> Ok I’ll admit I’m a borderline boomer on this shit, but having read over 230 it seems like a good thing to me and not the real problem. The problem seems to be that if I want to post wrongthink online I have to do it somewhere that allows it and those places are few and far between. This doesn’t seem to be because of 230 though, It’s more that funding these places is difficult Because of biased payment processors. Am I wrong?


Basically no one is talking about payment processors fucking people over. That is the big issue. That Facebook or Twitter will ban people but payment processors jump in to fuck over banned people when they try to start something new. 

Obama has been a great disaster to America in more than one way as he set up the foundations for all this shit.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 7, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> Basically no one is talking about payment processors fucking people over. That is the big issue. That Facebook or Twitter will ban people but payment processors jump in to fuck over banned people when they try to start something new.



Wait, you mean to tell me the Republican Party is just gonna let finance capital do whatever it wants? Because they care more about keeping their donors happy than my ability to poast honkler and 13 do 50? Who could have foreseen this, I feel so betrayed! Muh Tucker...muh Jersh Hawley...we wuz populists n shit...


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> CDA currently protects all web services equally.
> 
> There is a rumor I am being sued by Greer for alleged actions of alleged forum users. CDA Section 230 will the reason this alleged lawsuit will be dismissed without having to prove anything.


So under the new rules you'd have to show the clear, consistent moderation rules to still receive that protection.

You can't do that, because the moderation here is inconsistent purposely, which protects that malicious activity. You can't be a libel publisher and be a neutral platform at the same time.

If you'd just have clear, universal rules, you'd still be protected. But that might make it harder to successfully publish libel.

If you want to be a publisher and believe you aren't in fact publishing libel, you have to defend yourself in court like any other publisher.

Is kiwi farms a crowd sourced lolcow publication with editors? Why yes it is. 

This site is no different from any random celebrity news rag, except you don't have any liability currently. You also have no revenue, but that's another matter (ad companies are the real monopoly).


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> So under the new rules you'd have to show the clear, consistent moderation rules to still receive that protection.


Which new rules? There's like 10 proposed sets. You have a fantastical concept of what this proposed amendment is, what might actually go through, and what it does. You're arguing a fantasy about a fantasy using logic that is unique to you. It is literally impossible to have this conversation because you haven't set what fanfiction universe this is set in and even if you tried my perception of this fictional universe is different from yours.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 7, 2020)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/07/how_conservatives_plan_to_censor_themselves.html
		


How Conservatives Plan to Censor Themselves​
It is not surprising in our cancel culture era that powerful politicians are waging a highly organized campaign to restructure social media companies in their own image, including imposing new restrictions on what can and cannot be posted online. The surprise is that in a national conversation dominated by Black Lives Matter and other social justice warriors, the most vociferous leaders of this movement to control private companies and online speech are conservatives.

On Thursday, the Republicans who control the Senate Commerce Committee subpoenaed the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Facebook to defend their legal immunity to manage content on their sites. Making Silicon Valley kingpins like Jack Dorsey (pictured above) sweat will no doubt give Republicans satisfaction. As a tactical matter, it may make sense to a vulnerable Senate majority to fire a shot across the bow of liberal companies just before an election. But the direction of travel, as the British like to say, is not good.


----------



## Tomboy Respecter (Oct 7, 2020)

Shield Breaker said:


> I would have agreed with this a few years ago, but I dunno now. He's either a decent strategic thinker or he has a natural 20 luck. I'm not saying he's got a good idea on 230, just he's not as reactionary as people think. Almost everyone in DC are retarded about the Internet because they're boomers


It's literally a ploy to make his enemies constantly underestimate him. It's not even really 4D chess either (at least not completely), it's just the way he acts naturally and how it contrasts with that of a typical politician makes him seem dumb, but you aren't a fucking idiot if you are a billionaire with a large chain of hotels that span the globe, household recognition for nearly 30 years and especially so if you get to the top of the New York real estate scene. People that say "Trump is an idiot" or "Trump is a baby" are basically falling right where he wants them. It's why the Dems lost in 2016 in the first place: the race would have been a LOT more difficult for Trump had he acted in such a way that would have warranted them being concerned about losing .That said, he still makes dumb decisions though and needs to stop with the boomer bullshit. He should just leave Section 230 alone and get on with more important shit that's happening IRL.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> You have a fantastical concept of what this proposed amendment is, what might actually go through, and what it does.


If I'm understanding it correctly, the general consensus among conservatives is that big media platforms (primarily Twitter and Youtube) want to enjoy the privileges of an online platform while _acting_ like a publisher, and not facing any of the liabilities that come with it. According to them, Trump destroying section 230 will force these companies to be regulated like publishers and that's totally worth destroying the rest of the internet because... reasons.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> If I'm understanding it correctly, the general consensus among conservatives is that big media platforms (primarily Twitter and Youtube) want to enjoy the privileges of an online platform while _acting_ like a publisher, and not facing any of the liabilities that come with it. According to them, Trump destroying section 230 will force these companies to be regulated like publishers and that's totally worth destroying the rest of the internet because... reasons.


No, what people want is to say whatever they want without being banned and (in many instances) they want to be able to make money doing it.

There is perhaps one part of 230 worth changing, and it wouldn't enable this. What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional. You will break everything trying to make this work the way you want it to.

Even if I completely and totally yielded this fucking imaginary point that it is somehow possible to torture Section 230 to force Twitter to allow things you specifically want it to*, remember that one of the primary problems we face right now is that wrong opinions cannot be monetized. Even if suddenly YouTube was a totally fair platform for ideas, it would not be forced to monetize people the same way. You would also need to pretend that this amendment to 230 also magically forces YouTube, etc to allow monetization equitably, and that is so much more complicated and beyond the scope of what Section 230 is supposed to be or do.

You'd have to propose significant bank reforms on top of tortuous Section 230 changes to achieve this fantasy, and then you've done nothing but damage and complicate Section 230 for the sake of bank reforms. If you're going to do that, you might as well just reform the fucking banks and allow free market competition with equal opportunity to send and receive money and just not break 230 along the way.


* There is a ZERO PERCENT CHANCE any free speech oriented changes to Section 230 which could successfully be signed into law would not specifically carve out shit like anti-semitism and hate speech. Our reality is one where in order to receive hurricane relief funds in Texas, you have to sign under penalty of perjury you do not boycott Israel.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> No, what people want is to say whatever they want without being banned and (in many instances) they want to be able to make money doing it.
> 
> There is perhaps one part of 230 worth changing, and it wouldn't enable this. What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional. You will break everything trying to make this work the way you want it to.


I'd argue that the way it was already legislated is what is doomed to be nonfunctional. When they wrote section 230 they were talking about ISPs like aol and prodigy not being responsible for their users.

What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.

My fantasy version is at least as real as your fantasy version.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.


This is a lie. People said this about Net Neutrality and now since people think Net Neutrality being aborted won't have ill consequences because it didn't immediately split open the Earth, they are importing npc_dialog/political_advocacy/net_neutrality.txt as section_230.txt and that's a carry over. You _literally_ have no clue what you're talking about or how it's going to affect you should you get what your handlers want for you.

You are begging for civil liability to make hosting a platform in the United States to be untenable for organizations not already cash-out-the-ass rich. If you want something else, you should find a new cause.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional.


This isn't really what _I'm_ asking for, it's just a general opinion I hear being thrown around. If anything I just want social media platforms to be actually unbiased and uneditorialized without some fat retard fucking over the rest of the internet out of childish revenge.



ChikN10der said:


> What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.


If it has anything to do with removing section 230's protections against liability, it abso-fucking-lutely is regulation you tard. Again, even with the assumption that Twitter and Youtube are indeed being biased against certain demographics, it's not worth atom bombing the rest of the internet along with any possibility of establishing new platforms that could actually compete with the established ones we have now.


----------



## The Lizard Queen (Oct 7, 2020)

If The President wants his opposition to hate something, he'll say he loves it like money itself. If The President wants his opposition to work to change something, he'll say he hates it from the bottom of his dark soul.

What he could be starting here is a possible Joe Biden mousetrap. If Joe gets elected, he'll have a hard time touching 230 because it was a Trump position.

If Trump just wants to edit 230 (likely the real goal here) he'll start blasting on it, forcing the Democrats to defend it even though they also hate it in a way.
The ultimate goal is a compromise. If I had to guess, he's setting the stage to revamp the 230 provisions to prevent content moderators and providers such as Youtube or Twitter from arbitrarily blocking "hate speech" or whatever they else feel like because it disagrees with their politics or they think it promotes conspiracy theories.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

The Lizard Queen said:


> edit 230 (the real goal here)


He wants Jack Dorsey to stop fucking with his tweets and he does not give a single fuck about you. He does not know what Section 230 does, he has no idea how to fix it, and he doesn't care. He just wants to tweet.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 7, 2020)

LurkTrawl said:


> If you want 230 repealed, know this: none of the people you think will be hurt by it will care one whit that it's gone and the internet will only be a shittier place for it.



They will care a little.  There's 25 years of case law on the current version of the CDA.  Even at the very best, changing even a word would mean 25 more years.  That's costly even for the big boys.  But they will survive it.  The little guys and things that are marginally profitable go bye bye so they might consider the tradeoff worth it.  Even if they don't they'll exploit the opportunity to drive their competitors and challengers out of existence.



The Lizard Queen said:


> What he could be starting here is a possible Joe Biden mousetrap. If Joe gets elected, he'll have a hard time touching 230 because it was a Trump position.



He won't though.  Section 230 is inside pool shit for people familiar with free speech law.  The average moron, even if his life is directly impacted by it, would give you a blank, sheeplike expression if you asked him his opinion of 230.  He has no fucking clue what it is, like most normies have no fucking clue of the forces that affect their lives and are easily distracted by dumb side issues.  Much culture war shit is in this category (although some is in the Trojan Horse category of shit used to sneak in something much worse).


----------



## The Lizard Queen (Oct 7, 2020)

Coh said:


> It's literally a ploy to make his enemies constantly underestimate him. It's not even really 4D chess either (at least not completely), it's just the way he acts naturally and how it contrasts with that of a typical politician makes him seem dumb, but you aren't a fucking idiot if you are a billionaire with a large chain of hotels that span the globe, household recognition for nearly 30 years and especially so if you get to the top of the New York real estate scene. People that say "Trump is an idiot" or "Trump is a baby" are basically falling right where he wants them. It's why the Dems lost in 2016 in the first place: the race would have been a LOT more difficult for Trump had he acted in such a way that would have warranted them being concerned about losing .That said, he still makes dumb decisions though and needs to stop with the boomer bullshit. He should just leave Section 230 alone and get on with more important shit that's happening IRL.





Null said:


> He wants Jack Dorsey to stop fucking with his tweets and he does not give a single fuck about you. He does not know what Section 230 does, he has no idea how to fix it, and he doesn't care. He just wants to tweet.


Trump himself may debatably be an old boomer out of touch with these newfangled computation machines, but the people around him are not. If he's saying something publicly, especially before an election, he's reaching for a (possibly distant) goal.

If I had to guess, his ultimate goal is a compromise. He's setting the stage to revamp the 230 provisions to prevent content moderators and providers such as Youtube or Twitter from arbitrarily blocking "hate speech" or whatever they else feel like because it disagrees with their politics or they think it promotes conspiracy theories. It may also have something to do with programs like TikTok that are basically just foreign spy programs.


			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGxbaxviRVw
		







Spoiler: Here's the full text of 230






			https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)
		


47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)FindingsThe Congressfinds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)
any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)
filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)
transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)


The key could be the term "Access software provider"
_The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:_
_(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or_
_(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(It's also specifically written that any protections granted not apply to child porn or criminal activity)_
He could be aiming to have this redefined in order to protect posted content from the access software provider itself, as long as it wants to maintain its own liability protections under 230. This could have the potential not to restrict sites like Kiwi Farms... but to turn _Everything _into Kiwi Farms.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 7, 2020)

Trigger Me Timbers said:


> If section 230 got super fucked (like worst case scenario) would we see some companies moving headquarters to countries with better protections?



There aren't better protections.  Nowhere.  I don't think people grasp how fucking lucky we are.

It's more we'd be forced to move to countries with much worse protections, where the only real "protection" is the country is an abject shithole with no functioning government or police so whatever laws they have don't even matter, then pay whatever bribes are necessary for them to look the other way and do favors for them regarding anyone on your service they don't like.  So they may not care about people saying nigger, posting loli, or other degenerate shit, but anyone criticizing their corrupt regime is gone.


----------



## Pistoleer (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> He wants Jack Dorsey to stop fucking with his tweets and he does not give a single fuck about you. He does not know what Section 230 does, he has no idea how to fix it, and he doesn't care. He just wants to tweet.


What I’m gathering from reading this thread and a few articles on the subject is that this whole thing started because of an egotistical slap fight between Trump and Jack Dorsey. My layman interpretation is that fucking with 230 would be akin to burning down every fast food chain because Starbucks won’t sell your brand of coffee. But you can’t build your own coffee shop because the banks don’t like your coffee either. 
Also no politician is ever on your side, period. The best you can hope for is for their interests to line up with your interests and vote accordingly.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> It's more we'd be forced to move to countries with much worse protections, where the only real "protection" is the country is an abject shithole with no functioning government or police so whatever laws they have don't even matter, then pay whatever bribes are necessary for them to look the other way and do favors for them regarding anyone on your service they don't like. So they may not care about people saying nigger, posting loli, or other degenerate shit, but anyone criticizing their corrupt regime is gone.


Russia, basically. You'd have to make a site hosted in Russia that blocks connections from any Russian IP and does not index to Yandex, and block yandex/mail.ru emails from registering. That'd be the best way to keep Rozkomnadzor out of your hair.

Of course, in post-230 US, Google would just be deindexing shit left and right so it's pointless, nevermind domain registrars, ICANN, etc, etc, etc,. Might as well just bite the bullet and go .onion. Maybe that's what people want, I don't know, but I'm not going to host that.


----------



## knobslobbin (Oct 7, 2020)

I just wish people would stop using platforms actively trying to censor them with clear internal political biases. Is that too much to ask?

My entire family constantly bitch about how shitty facebook is, regardless of them being leftist woketards or raging cuckservatives. And yet they all keep fucking using it!!!!  They look at me being the crazy one for deleting that shit years ago.  Am I taking crazy pills?  No, it's the world that is clown.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> This isn't really what _I'm_ asking for, it's just a general opinion I hear being thrown around. If anything I just want social media platforms to be actually unbiased and uneditorialized without some fat retard fucking over the rest of the internet out of childish revenge.
> 
> 
> If it has anything to do with removing section 230's protections against liability, it abso-fucking-lutely is regulation you tard. Again, even with the assumption that Twitter and Youtube are indeed being biased against certain demographics, it's not worth atom bombing the rest of the internet along with any possibility of establishing new platforms that could actually compete with the established ones we have now.


Removing pieces of laws or removing them entirely is deregulation. Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago. 
Quick, what's a regulation? 

A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."
So is the communications decency act a piece of legislation? Yes. Is it a law? Yes. Was it made in order to control the way something was done? Yes.

It is therefore a regulation. Removing it would therefore be deregulation.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> Removing pieces of laws or removing them entirely is deregulation. Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago.
> Quick, what's a regulation?
> 
> A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."
> ...


The first amendment is a regulation that prevents the government from arresting you and chopping off your arms and legs if you criticize them. Therefore, it's a regulation and removing it would be deregulation.


----------



## ChikN10der (Oct 7, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> The first amendment is a regulation that prevents the government from arresting you and chopping off your arms and legs if you criticize them. Therefore, it's a regulation and removing it would be deregulation.


It's actually a constitutional amendment that is a regulation on the government. I don't want to deregulate the government.
Laws against monopolies are also regulations id like to keep. 

Regardless, removal in full or in part of a regulation is by definition deregulation. That's a word definition, not a value judgement.


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (Oct 7, 2020)

The Lizard Queen said:


> Trump himself may debatably be an old boomer out of touch with these newfangled computation machines, but the people around him are not. If he's saying something publicly, especially before an election, he's reaching for a (possibly distant) goal.


Or the fact that Trump has a tendency to just go off on his own and his people have trouble pulling him back from doing so. 

The difference is that Trump has always led and done things his way. He was the boss, he surrounded himself with people that agreed and thought like him and he didn't tolerate any kind of back talk. For better or ill that was how he did business. Problem is you can't do that in government but Trump has continued to do so because that's who he is. It's not like he's playing 4D chess. He's literally just uninformed and doesn't have time to listen to any other view but his own.


----------



## Lieutenant Rasczak (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> This is a lie. People said this about Net Neutrality and now since people think Net Neutrality being aborted won't have ill consequences because it didn't immediately split open the Earth, they are importing npc_dialog/political_advocacy/net_neutrality.txt as section_230.txt and that's a carry over. You _literally_ have no clue what you're talking about or how it's going to affect you should you get what your handlers want for you.
> 
> You are begging for civil liability to make hosting a platform in the United States to be untenable for organizations not already cash-out-the-ass rich. If you want something else, you should find a new cause.


Is it safe to say that the internet's completely fucked at this point, Null?  Because politicians won't fix the real problem at hand without just destroying the infrastructure of the internet and thus fucking shit up to a massive degree.


----------



## Puff (Oct 7, 2020)

I don't care. Burn it to the ground.


----------



## ZippyZoopa (Oct 7, 2020)

Dante Alighieri said:


> Over my cold, dead, body.


Oh a die-hard libertarian? Name every child porn then.


----------



## Null (Oct 7, 2020)

ChikN10der said:


> A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."


"How something is done," not "who is liable for what". It is, by definition, in the literal definition of literal, not regulation. Regulation is when you start trying to force platforms to moderate in certain ways, or not at all. Then you are regulating those platforms. You are not protesting regulation, you are protesting a bill regarding liabilities which acts independently of how "something is done". You are not as smart as you think you are. It's perfectly reasonable not to be educated in what this particular legislation does, but it is unreasonable to think you are.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (Oct 7, 2020)

ZippyZoopa said:


> Oh a die-hard libertarian? Name every child porn then.


Cuties


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Oct 7, 2020)

I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230. 
This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.


----------



## I can't imagine (Oct 7, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230.
> This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.



It gets a bit trickier than that, I'm afraid.  Go into the average lolcow's thread and see all the people that "joking" say that person should kill themselves, or deserves to die, or is a child-fucker, or any of a zillion other things.  While most of that stuff is theoretically actionable, it becomes "Random Internet User #423749" and it's not only not worth going after, you wouldn't have an effective way of doing so anyway.

In this scenario, though, Lolcow LLC would have to respond to all those claims.  And yes, some will be incompetent, and some will be hideously badly written.  But it still costs a lot more money to respond to those than the previous strategy of "lol 230 bitch!" that's been used thus far.  

And, well, some of them probably will have a legit case, or at least one good enough to get to discovery and depositions and trials and the like.  That's even more money.  While I don't know Null's finances, obviously...I'm gonna guess having hundreds of thousands of additional legal expenses would make operating the place untenable.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> oh so you're just a schizo retard who thinks their 10 user Lain imageboard is _le resistance_. Okay, good luck institutionalizing change from your .onion url, you stupid fucking faggot.



Anybody who still thinks TOR/.onion hosting will be our salvation is delusional. It was and is literally a naval intelligence project. Proportionately there are probably more feds on the deep web than the surface web, everything there is a scam or a honeypot.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think would have any special legal advantages against censorship either (relating to 230 or in general) even if it wasn’t an Op.

Don’t forget the normie Internet was a DARPA project too. The stink of glowies was always on it, and if it ever really was the Wild West, it was never gonna stay that way.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 7, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230.
> This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.



And who lose their suits against the posters of the material they're suing about.  After everyone involved spends lots of money.  If you can sue the sites themselves then sites like this have to pay to defend themselves, too.  Not just against one suit but all of them, simultaneously, all the time.  It's a tipping point thing.

Josh is a reasonable guy (by that I mean completely insane but with limits).  He's willing to become all but an international fugitive, live life on the run, have his life completely destroyed, just for this site to exist, but just being immune to personal liability for every stupid thing every one of you motherfuckers including me say every day keeps him doing it.

It isn't instantly going to destroy everything if § 230 goes away, but Josh hits hit shit limit at that point.  Because he knows what that means in the long run.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Oct 7, 2020)

Null said:


> Russia, basically. You'd have to make a site hosted in Russia that blocks connections from any Russian IP and does not index to Yandex, and block yandex/mail.ru emails from registering. That'd be the best way to keep Rozkomnadzor out of your hair.
> 
> Of course, in post-230 US, Google would just be deindexing shit left and right so it's pointless, nevermind domain registrars, ICANN, etc, etc, etc,. Might as well just bite the bullet and go .onion. Maybe that's what people want, I don't know, but I'm not going to host that.



I can't imagine having to use a .onion just to post here. TOR is slow as shit


----------



## HOMO FOR LIFE (Oct 8, 2020)

@Null BTFO.
TRUMP 1
NULL -9999


----------



## ComedyEnjoyer (Oct 8, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230.
> This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.


Despite popular conceptions of the law, it is fair enough that you can't just send armies of jews after something you don't like to shut it down. Plenty of big companies have tried to fuck with KF (Lego comes to mind) but once it becomes clear that saber rattling won't get what they want they just decide it's not worth it and fuck off. 

Removal of section 230 would suddenly mean their threats - and lolcow's - would actually have a legal leg to stand on. Make no mistake, there is genuine defamation being committed by Does all over this site. There are PLENTY of lolcows with some cash and IQ over 80 who would sue the farms if they knew it had a chance, the aren't just all Greers and Scotts, and even if they don't win, the lack of 230 means the cases would go on long enough to bankrupt josh.


----------



## makingdoom (Oct 8, 2020)

Fuck trump and his retard followers for defending this, hopefully he will lose the election so he can even get more mad about meanie twitter disclaimers.

Better "die" a hero, than live long enough to become a villain.


----------



## Captain Manning (Oct 8, 2020)

I am sure it is 100% coincidental that the people who bitch about 230 the loudest are the same people that have been fucked with by Dorsey. Trump, Rekieta, Dick Masterson... scores of others.

What?! I can't say whatever I want on this private-sector site infested with, and run by, SJWs? BURN THE INTERNET!

Just find another platform that is more tolerant of your edgelord commentary. Like KiwiFarms. The site that will die if 230 is gutted. Jesus Christ. Their lolbertarian ideas of free speech absolutism is autistic.

When you want to own the libs so bad, you'll kill everybody to do it.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> Even if suddenly YouTube was a totally fair platform for ideas, it would not be forced to monetize people the same way


Sorry for being a tard but doesn't America have a whole 60-something year old law that says you can't discriminate pay based on gender/race/belief etc.? Or does none of that count because Youtubers are technically contractors instead of employees?


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 8, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> Sorry for being a tard but doesn't America have a whole 60-something year old law that says you can't discriminate pay based on gender/race/belief etc.? Or does none of that count because Youtubers are technically contractors instead of employees?


Political affiliation is not a protected class.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Oct 8, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230.
> This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.


It would open the floodgates to dumb ass lawsuits and would also mean Null would either have to shut the place down, take responsibility for EVERY users content or hand over personal details on request. All 3 of these options would kill the site.


----------



## Paladin Derich (Oct 8, 2020)

Still voting Trump.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 8, 2020)

Canine with Fangs said:


> Despite popular conceptions of the law, it is fair enough that you can't just send armies of jews after something you don't like to shut it down. Plenty of big companies have tried to fuck with KF (Lego comes to mind) but once it becomes clear that saber rattling won't get what they want they just decide it's not worth it and fuck off.



People vastly overestimate the armies of Jews in three piece suits.  Just because you get kicked off most places when Soyny starts bitching about memes and hurling around DMCAs, look what they did when Josh just told them all to fuck off.  This site got Soyny DMCAs and basically just ignored them.  What happened?  Nothing.  They were at a complete loss.  Do they actually file a suit over this shit and lose?  Apparently not.

But § 230 away, as nool knows, is a death sentence.  It's somewhat similar to the DMCA in that your service provider can literally just say "blow me" once they get a counter notification from the dude doxing himself in the process to do it, because they now have zero liability.  Their interest is to favor their customer at that point over some rando threatening them.  That's kind of why the DMCA is pro-consumer, in its ultimate effect.  The counter notification gives you the choice of basically saying "come at me bro" instead of caving in, and your ISP just keeps providing service, since they have nothing to lose.

Getting rid of § 230 robs you of this.  You can be as brave as you like, and entirely okay with some scumbag operation coming at you.  

But your platform is gone because they now stand to lose everything, for some guy they don't give a shit about.  So when you say "come at me bro" they say no, fuck that, I'm coming at your ISP, you don't get to fight for what you believe in, you're toast.  You're gone.

You don't get to be the Tiananmen tank guy even.  Even getting run down by the tank doesn't happen for you.  You just don't exist at all.


----------



## cryptidfuck (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.
> 
> View attachment 1645001
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760
> ...


Why can't people learn to just keep the internet like it has been since the 80s-90s.


----------



## GHTD (Oct 8, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> Anybody who still thinks TOR/.onion hosting will be our salvation is delusional. It was and is literally a naval intelligence project. Proportionately there are probably more feds on the deep web than the surface web, everything there is a scam or a honeypot.



I think in the Edward Snowden leaks it said the NSA/DOJ can't reliably do mass surveillance on TOR, though I could be wrong. They would have to take extra steps to take anything on TOR down.

Speaking of Snowden, the courts just ruled recently the NSA mass surveillance programs were illegal:








						U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
					

Seven years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans' telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful - and that the U.S. intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were...




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Null (Oct 8, 2020)

GHTD said:


> I think in the Edward Snowden leaks it said the NSA/DOJ can't reliably do mass surveillance on TOR, though I could be wrong. They would have to take extra steps to take anything on TOR down.


Disinfo about Tor is everywhere.








						Slicing onions: Part 1 - Myth-busting Tor.
					

The Tor network is an anonymity system designed to protect the privacy and anonymity of its users. Unlike a VPN service, Tor is both free...




					write.privacytools.io


----------



## GHTD (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> Disinfo about Tor is everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Will look at when I'm not hacking up a storm. Thanks.

Fuck sinus drain.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> Disinfo about Tor is everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TOR is as good a tool as you use it as.  Know what it is.  Know what it isn't. 

Remember, They aren't going to get you by cracking your 4096-bit RSA key with a $50 million server farm, they're going to get you by cracking your fingers with a $5 hammer.


----------



## Longjack Attack (Oct 8, 2020)

Canine with Fangs said:


> Removal of section 230 would suddenly mean their threats - and lolcow's - would actually have a legal leg to stand on. Make no mistake, there is genuine defamation being committed by Does all over this site. There are PLENTY of lolcows with some cash and IQ over 80 who would sue the farms if they knew it had a chance, the aren't just all Greers and Scotts, and even if they don't win, the lack of 230 means the cases would go on long enough to bankrupt josh.


Null said it himself in one of his streams that if anything major happens to 230, he would have to nuke this site immediately because of the many cows out there ready to sue him.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> Disinfo about Tor is everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love the argument that you shouldn’t be wary of all TOR’s alphabet boy origins because it was only 85% directly funded by US intelligence instead of 100%, and the guy  the government sponsored to write it wasn’t a known intelligence agent himself but merely took money from one. I guess that 15% and one degree of separation make a big difference.


----------



## TaterBot (Oct 8, 2020)

I'm probably a minority of one as usual, but it seems to me that if Trump was really dead serious about this, he'd have better more lethal means to go at it than twittering about it occasionally.  Seems to me he's more like,  firing a warning shot across the bows of Big Tech.  Possible hope they will rein in some of their nastier corporate greed behaviors themselves.

Just because Trump is a Boomer doesn't mean he won't have any tech savvy people working for him. Or legal political types who know how to draft laws and not just poop out tweets. That is, if he was actually serious.


----------



## Null (Oct 8, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> I love the argument that you shouldn’t be wary of all TOR’s alphabet boy origins because it was only 85% directly funded by US intelligence instead of 100%, and the guy  the government sponsored to write it wasn’t a known intelligence agent himself. I guess that 15% and one degree of separation make a big difference.


It's a really excellent thing that Tor is completely open source, fuckwit. You're much better off using public unencrypted networks with known NSA backbone spyware and/or VPNs that you can only hope aren't MitM'd. "Don't use that gun! The (((IDF))) made it!"


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 8, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> I love the argument that you shouldn’t be wary of all TOR’s alphabet boy origins because it was only 85% directly funded by US intelligence instead of 100%, and the guy  the government sponsored to write it wasn’t a known intelligence agent himself but merely took money from one. I guess that 15% and one degree of separation make a big difference.



Math doesn't care what you think about it or who came up with it.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> It's a really excellent thing that Tor is completely open source, fuckwit. You're much better off using public unencrypted networks with known NSA backbone spyware and/or VPNs that you can only hope aren't MitM'd. "Don't use that gun! The (((IDF))) made it!"



Why should I expect to not be surveilled through a naval intelligence project? It might be better than nothing but it can’t be immune. Whataboutism with VPNs doesn’t change that.

If I was a member of Hamas and the IDF left a big crate of Uzis out in the open for me to take from, shouldn’t I suspect they might be defective, have tracking chips on them, etc?


----------



## Null (Oct 8, 2020)

Another schizophrenic with absolutely not a fucking clue of what anything is but sees scary words and has their monkey brain fill in the rest.


----------



## polyester (Oct 8, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> Worst case scenario I see a second "underground" internet poping up once the main one is fully fucked.



Shitposters will still have online discussion sites (behind Tor), but boomers and bluechecks won't?
_*in Eric Cartman's voice:*_  Sweet.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 8, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> Why should I expect to not be surveilled on a naval intelligence project known to be infested with feds? Do you? This is also true of the surface web, but TOR is no more trustworthy.
> 
> A gun made by the IDF or whatever is completely non-analogous, lol. It’s more like “Why should I not eat the tasty cheese inside this mouse trap, I don’t see the spring on it and the Orkin man told me it wasn’t like the others”



You should expect to be surveilled on anything, really.  If you're even using tor at all, why are you doing it?  Just using it at all exposes you to some level of increased scrutiny.

But we know exactly what tor does.  You can audit the code yourself.  It's right there, in the open.  You know what these nodes do.  There are obviously going to be fed nodes, nodes run by weirdos, whatever.  The network itself could be entirely compromised.  Just the fact that it exists guarantees someone, somewhere is trying to do it.  There are people doing it every single day, maybe for pay, and maybe for fun.  

But just mindlessly claiming it actually is and somehow nobody has actually exploited this in any visible way is pure tinfoil.  Take that shit elsewhere unless you have some actual evidence.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> Another schizophrenic with absolutely not a fucking clue of what anything is but sees scary words and has their monkey brain fill in the rest.





AnOminous said:


> You should expect to be surveilled on anything, really.  If you're even using tor at all, why are you doing it?  Just using it at all exposes you to some level of increased scrutiny.



Though TOR has its upsides, my point is you can’t rely on it to save you from censorship and/or surveillance if TPTB go full scorched earth on the internet. I don’t think either of you would disagree with that, but many people worried about free speech online see or saw TOR as their salvation.

Of course the technology itself is just a tool with no inherent bias, but the tool’s financial backers in US intelligence have interests that conflict with free speech on the internet, and thus care how you or I might use it. Because they paid for it to use for themselves, they presumably took the time to know TOR inside and out (these aren’t clueless boomers like Trump), not just as a finished product but during development when vulnerabilities were more apparent.

If intelligence orgs haven’t yet found a way to compromise TOR, they will if it becomes a serious threat to their control of the narrative (i.e. if there is a mass exodus to TOR). Or maybe they don’t/won’t, but it would be naive to assume not.


----------



## Null (Oct 8, 2020)

please for the love of god read the fucking article i read before saying shit that is directly countered by information in the article


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> please for the love of god read the fucking article i read before saying shit that is directly countered by information in the article



I read the article. You know what stood out to me? *“Tor is not a silver bullet”*. Many attacks on Tor aren’t technologically impossible, just impractical to do on a large scale right now.

If there was a mass exodus to TOR after drastic censorship of the normal internet, TPTB wouldn’t just slink away in defeat - they’d invest their considerable resources and expertise into making attacks more practical, efficient and effective. TOR would be a temporary solution at best.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 8, 2020)

Terrorist said:


> I read the article. You know what stood out to me? *“Tor is not a silver bullet”*. Many attacks on Tor aren’t technologically impossible, just impractical to do on a large scale right now.
> 
> If there was a mass exodus to TOR after drastic censorship of the normal internet, TPTB wouldn’t just slink away in defeat - they’d invest their considerable resources and expertise into making attacks more practical, efficient and effective. TOR would be a temporary solution at best.


Bud, by your logic _everything_ is only a "temporary solution" because someone would eventually find a way to compromise it, so we should all tuck our dicks between our legs and commit An Hero on ourselves. There will never be a 100% risk free solution with these things and you'll just have to live with that.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 8, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> Bud, by your logic _everything_ is only a "temporary solution" because someone would eventually find a way to compromise it, so we should all tuck our dicks between our legs and commit An Hero on ourselves. There will never be a 100% risk free solution with these things and you'll just have to live with that.



All solutions will be temporary because TPTB inherently do not want free speech on the internet and will compromise any attempt at it. It’s systemic. Like we’ve seen with NP2, there is no “just make your own”.

The solution is to overthrow or at least reform the liberal elite consensus, to fight back instead of flee, but that’s improbable if not impossible (like Null puts it, if XYZ politician proposed reforms to payment processors or the breakup of big tech, he’d be shot in the head). So IMO use what you need to for now, but don’t get lulled into a false sense of security.

That’s what I’m saying with Tor: the government and/or a corporation will find a way to break that shit sooner or later. In the government’s case, I think it’s likely they have or are close because of their intimate involvement in Tor’s development.


----------



## Null (Oct 8, 2020)

I want schizophrenics who have no sense of pragmatism to fuck off back to 8chan


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 8, 2020)

Null said:


> I want schizophrenics who have no sense of pragmatism to fuck off back to 8chan


What about 9chan.tw?


----------



## Nippy (Oct 8, 2020)

Is being for or against 230 going to get me more tranzies and basketball Americans rioting in the streets every night?


----------



## Ly Erg (Oct 8, 2020)

Captain Manning said:


> I am sure it is 100% coincidental that the people who bitch about 230 the loudest are the same people that have been fucked with by Dorsey. Trump, Rekieta, Dick Masterson... scores of others.
> 
> What?! I can't say whatever I want on this private-sector site infested with, and run by, SJWs? BURN THE INTERNET!
> 
> ...



Nothing speaks more lolcowish than someone willing to own themselves to own the Libs.


----------



## ComedyEnjoyer (Oct 8, 2020)

Ly Erg said:


> Nothing speaks more lolcowish than someone willing to own themselves to own the Libs.


Destroy the entire internet because I got banned for tweeting "Dilate, Fag".


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 8, 2020)

Canine with Fangs said:


> Destroy the entire internet because I got banned for tweeting "Dilate, Fag".



seethe harder, incel


----------



## DamageJoy (Oct 9, 2020)

I think the Dolan is just A-logging Null at this point.


----------



## cockaine (Oct 9, 2020)

Man, I'm so glad I don't live in a backwards info suppressing shithole country run by some fat autistic chil- fuck.


----------



## Shark Senpai (Oct 9, 2020)

Found a clip from the future, depicted is Null the day after Section 230 gets repealed and he closes down the site.





Note: Could also be a clip of Null after he fails to claim Jury Nullification because someone else beat him to it, nobody in the future is 100% certain.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 10, 2020)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke
		


Apparently Biden wants it repealed as well, it seems no matter who wins the internet is fucked. 

Can we please establish a law that prevents anybody over the age of 70 from becoming president?


----------



## George Orson Welles (Oct 11, 2020)

Kafferlord said:


> Can we please establish a law that prevents anybody over the age of 70 from becoming president?


I doubt it's one of those things dealing with their age, it's more so their mindset, you can be 100 and still think like a Zoomer.

Anyway I doubt the internet will be as 'free' as it is today in the coming years, no matter what their political stance is, or even their age, because every single candidate wants us to be compliant, no matter the circumstance.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 11, 2020)

Kafferlord said:


> https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think whoever mentioned it to trump is the real problem. Because trump latched on to “it would hurt Twitter”, to him Twitter is the only thing on the internet. Once he amplified it, it got all the other dumb boomers now focused on 230.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 11, 2020)

CatParty said:


> I think whoever mentioned it to trump is the real problem. Because trump latched on to “it would hurt Twitter”, to him Twitter is the only thing on the internet. Once he amplified it, it got all the other dumb boomers now focused on 230.


Either way it seems that no matter if Biden or Trump is elected, The future of Kiwi Farms is uncertain, as soon as that bill is repealed. Literally every cow mentioned on this site would have the legal right to take this site down. If Trump wins there’s a good chance he might just forget about it. But if Biden does, he said that if he became president, he’d repeal the bill the moment he entered office.

The internet as a whole will likely become just like the education system, where anybody who criticized the government or other people for doing stupid shit would be legally accountable for being sued. Only media that views America as the one true country will only be allowed. It seems the two party system as a whole was ultimately a mistake in the long run as both of them share the same opinions on most matters. It may sound far fetched, but considering America wants to create a firewall similar to China where only pro-government media is allowed, it doesn’t seem too unlikely.


----------



## President Joe Biden (Oct 14, 2020)

These companies just keep giving Trump ammo to use against them, Facebook and Twitter have both prohibited linking to this NY Post article about Hunter Biden.
Archive
Always a couple bad actors to ruin it for everyone, except these bad eggs are worth over $800 billion.


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 14, 2020)

I think its now a when, not if, that section 230 will die


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Oct 14, 2020)

Exterminate Leftists said:


> These companies just keep giving Trump ammo to use against them, Facebook and Twitter have both prohibited linking to this NY Post article about Hunter Biden.
> Archive
> Always a couple bad actors to ruin it for everyone, except these bad eggs are worth over $800 billion.


Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.


----------



## X Prime (Oct 14, 2020)

Exterminate Leftists said:


> These companies just keep giving Trump ammo to use against them, Facebook and Twitter have both prohibited linking to this NY Post article about Hunter Biden.
> Archive
> Always a couple bad actors to ruin it for everyone, except these bad eggs are worth over $800 billion.



What else is there to say?


----------



## GuntPunt (Oct 14, 2020)

It begins...


----------



## Sheryl Nome (Oct 14, 2020)

GuntPunt said:


> It begins...
> View attachment 1662551


Dems will block anything until after the election anyways.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 15, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.


The democrats and republicans in general don’t like the idea of americans not following mainstream news outlets to get information from as they view it as an attack on their country. I think that’s mainly the reason why both of them agree with gutting section 230, so they can place a regulation system similar to other countries that never criticizes anything the government does. Imagine the whole Iraq war fiasco, but never ending.

Like I said, this might sound unrealistic, but considering America at the moment heavily wants to compete with China in terms of nationalism. It wouldn’t be surprising if they start copying China’s economic and social planning to beat them. That includes regulating the internet to be as least free as possible.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Oct 15, 2020)

Kafferlord said:


> The democrats and republicans in general don’t like the idea of americans not following mainstream news outlets to get information from as they view it as an attack on their country. I think that’s mainly the reason why both of them agree with gutting section 230, so they can place a regulation system similar to other countries that never criticizes anything the government does. Imagine the whole Iraq war fiasco, but never ending.
> 
> Like I said, this might sound unrealistic, but considering America at the moment heavily wants to compete with China in terms of nationalism. It wouldn’t be surprising if they start copying China’s economic and social planning to beat them. That includes regulating the internet to be as least free as possible.


America is already nationalist as fuck. 

However the domestic vision of America for either party is a different story.


----------



## Jack Awful (Oct 15, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.


The dems want to get rid of 230 too and replace it with something that allows them to force websites to take down "hate speech".


----------



## MrJokerRager (Oct 15, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> The dems want to get rid of 230 too and replace it with something that allows them to force websites to take down "hate speech".


I find the democrats reasoning to be more catty and elitist nanny statist compared to Trump, which is basically fuck you Jack and Zuckerberg. 

Supreme Court has to be buffed up against this shit and having so many minorities really diluted the 1st amendment as many of these shit birds come from places that do not value it.


----------



## Beavis (Oct 15, 2020)

Why don't these companie like twitter and faceberg just back off and not censor so god damn much? I'm not saying let people just spam NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, but if someone's feefees get hurt tell them to turn off their computer or close the app on they phone.


----------



## Jack Awful (Oct 15, 2020)

Beavis said:


> Why don't these companie like twitter and faceberg just back off and not censor so god damn much? I'm not saying let people just spam NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, but if someone's feefees get hurt tell them to turn off their computer or close the app on they phone.


Advertisers and the government want a sanitized internet because it appeals to the most customers and is "in" right now, free thought threatens those in charge, and censorship because "hate speech is harmful" makes them seem compassionate.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

The U.S. has Section 230. It insulates you from civil claims over user-generated content. People are suggesting repealing it would change things. Some people, like Null, suggest it would kill the Farms, and some people think it'd allow them to say the N-word on Twitter. Why?

Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it. If you want to sue them in the UK or Germany, it doesn't protect them. Repealing Section 230 won't hurt them, they'll just spend slightly more on Indians. You still won't be allowed to say the N-word, and "avoiding the moderator's dilemma" is an explicit goal when adding such legislation.

For smaller websites, there's many other jurisdictions that have nearly identical laws. Why do you have to host your stuff in the U.S.? The Internet isn't any better over there. If the U.S. were to repeal Section 230, couldn't all the imageboards just move their servers over to Chile and go on with their lives? It takes minutes to change what country you're hosted in, and colocation exists all over the world.



			
				https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28933 said:
			
		

> Article 85 Ñ. Service providers who, at the request of a user, store, by themselves or through third parties, data on their network or system, or who perform search services, linking and, or referring to an online site using information search tools , including hyperlinks and directories, will not be held responsible for the data stored or referred to on the condition that the provider:
> 
> a) Does not have effective knowledge of the illegal nature of the data;
> 
> ...



This is less strict than the DMCA. In the U.S., you need a notice from the copyright holder. In Chile, you actually need a full court order to take copyrighted material down.

I can't see how killing Section 230 will change anything, neither for better nor worse. Facebook will keep censoring, and imageboards will keep existing.


----------



## likeacrackado (Oct 15, 2020)

the chaos is the point


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Oct 15, 2020)

Because then Null would be held personally responsible for anything any user on this site publishes.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

NOT Sword Fighter Super said:


> Because then Null would be held personally responsible for anything any user on this site publishes.


Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to _Vaca de las risas S.A._?
I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 15, 2020)

The FCC will literally turn the Internet into television in terms of censorship. Not surprising the guy who killed Net Neutrality will also kill Section 230 as well.


----------



## kiwifarmsfan1 (Oct 15, 2020)

Null have any hair left or on suicide watch yet?



			https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1316819442886758400
		




			https://twitter.com/RekietaMedia/status/1316830870318264321


----------



## Meat Pickle (Oct 15, 2020)

It's big deal because it's what keeps this site legal.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

It's interesting that you claim "Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it" because those are two of 230-opposing politicians' favorite examples of sites that we need to more effectively censor (by removing section 230). These companies are headquartered in the United States, and their corporate officers are largely US residents/citizens. And while it's true that, theoretically, we could all host our sites in Liberia, we should also consider the practical hurdles that would be involved in doing that. A few things to think about:

You can find many examples of cases where companies cave to censorship laws in order to operate in a certain country. China is the most prominent example. Now, let's imagine what would happen if such laws were implemented in the United States. Is it more likely that Twitter would censor only the US version of their site while delivering an unrestricted version to the rest of the world? Or, would it be easier for them to apply the restrictions required by US law site-wide? (Or, is it more likely that they shut down or morph into something unrecognizable?)
There are few countries in the world with the infrastructure necessary to deliver these services. There are even fewer that also have speech laws comparable to what we have today in the United States.
The United States government has long arms. Most of the world's non-shithole countries want the goodwill of the US, and that means they have extradition agreements with the US. Where are you going planning to go host your site? Iran?
But who the fuck cares about those huge sites nowadays, anyway? Like broadcast/cable TV, they're mostly cancerous. And they have so much money and so much clout that they're going to get to write the laws that replace 230, anyway.

It's the sites like this one that stand to lose the most from a repeal of section 230. If Null owned a newspaper, and I wrote in article that was published in that newspaper that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null could be sued for publishing that libelous article; he is accountable for what is published in his newspaper.

If I make a forum post on KF that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null is protected by Section 230.

The only way for the site operator to protect himself from being sued is prior restraint.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 15, 2020)

Well, it was nice knowing KF.



			https://twitter.com/ajitpaifcc/status/1316808733805236226


----------



## byuu (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to _Vaca de las risas S.A._?
> I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.


Because other countries don't have an analogue to Section 230.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Oct 15, 2020)

Null reacting to Twitter and Facebook; October 14th, 2020, colorized:








Respect the Erect said:


> Well, it was nice knowing KF.
> 
> https://tw.tinf.io/ajitpaifcc/status/1316808733805236226



This is probably the best option, since no matter what the FCC 'clarifies' the protection of places like the farms remain, I would think.


----------



## Boris Blank's glass eye (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to _Vaca de las risas S.A._?
> I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.


I reckon turning your argument around and declaring Zuckerbook et al publishers, or better yet, utilities would be light years better.
Since they are practically monopolies in their respective fields.

Want all the benefits of being a publisher/utility? Then step up and accept all responsibilities as well, including a huge dong of lawsuits.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 15, 2020)




----------



## HumanHive (Oct 15, 2020)

Hopefully this helps Russel’s lawsuit.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 15, 2020)

I should’ve refreshed the fucking thread before posting. Two other faggots already posted what I did. That’s what I get for keeping the tab open for 2 days



Shield Breaker said:


> Null reacting to Twitter and Facebook; October 14th, 2020, colorized:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know, I’m not even sure how far a new rule would go with them. Like how much power could it have? They can’t invalidate a law. But they sure as hell can influence how it’s handled.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> It's interesting that you claim "Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it" because those are two of 230-opposing politicians' favorite examples of sites that we need to more effectively censor (by removing section 230). These companies are headquartered in the United States, and their corporate officers are largely US residents/citizens. And while it's true that, theoretically, we could all host our sites in Liberia, we should also consider the practical hurdles that would be involved in doing that. A few things to think about:


Since when were politicians smart?
My point is that all laws everywhere apply to Facebook, since their operations are global. If they were sued in a German court, they would not be able to claim Section 230. Even if it were repealed, it would have no effect on them.


malt ipecac said:


> You can find many examples of cases where companies cave to censorship laws in order to operate in a certain country. China is the most prominent example. Now, let's imagine what would happen if such laws were implemented in the United States. Is it more likely that Twitter would censor only the US version of their site while delivering an unrestricted version to the rest of the world? Or, would it be easier for them to apply the restrictions required by US law site-wide? (Or, is it more likely that they shut down or morph into something unrecognizable?)


1) Twitter already applies European censorship law worldwide.
2) Repealing Section 230 doesn't imply creating explicit censorship laws. That would cause new problems, I agree.


malt ipecac said:


> There are few countries in the world with the infrastructure necessary to deliver these services. There are even fewer that also have speech laws comparable to what we have today in the United States.


Speech laws apply to the users of the site. If speech laws apply to the provider, they're already fucked.


malt ipecac said:


> The United States government has long arms. Most of the world's non-shithole countries want the goodwill of the US, and that means they have extradition agreements with the US. Where are you going planning to go host your site? Iran?


That's for criminal charges. Section 230 does not grant immunity against prosecution, only against civil suits.
It beggars belief to think the U.S. would bother applying the full weight of the military-industrial complex to enforce a default judgement for defamation. It also seems strange to think that the U.S. would have jurisdiction over a foreign-hosted, foreign-incorporated site. Even if it did, how are they going to collect without piercing the corporate veil?


malt ipecac said:


> But who the fuck cares about those huge sites nowadays, anyway? Like broadcast/cable TV, they're mostly cancerous. And they have so much money and so much clout that they're going to get to write the laws that replace 230, anyway.
> 
> It's the sites like this one that stand to lose the most from a repeal of section 230. If Null owned a newspaper, and I wrote in article that was published in that newspaper that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null could be sued for publishing that libelous article; he is accountable for what is published in his newspaper.
> 
> ...


Section 230 protects you from civil cases in the US. It does not protect you from civil cases in, say, Germany. It is unlikely that an American court would find jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with no material business presence in the US, and if it did it is unlikely that it would be able to pierce the corporate veil.



garakfan69 said:


> Because other countries don't have an analogue to Section 230.



Chile has Article 85 Ñ of Law 17.336, which is an analogue to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 but with less onerous requirements. See OP.
Singapore has the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, which has similar provisions (sites can receive administrative orders, but are not liable for user-generated content)
Many other countries have similar laws. The US is not unique in this regard.


----------



## Beavis (Oct 15, 2020)

Alright everyone in the discord!


----------



## glow (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to _Vaca de las risas S.A._?



Not a lawyer (as you're about to see), but I wonder if he would get caught out by the CLOUD act:



> Primarily the CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.



I'm not sure how this interacts with Section 230 but the fact that he is the administrator of the site means that he's got to comply with warrants no matter where the site is physically hosted.

And if it is a loophole as you suggest, I don't think it'll last too long.

I would expect that to be immune he'd have to be personally domiciled outside the USA to avoid this.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 15, 2020)

It appears Twitter is down, I have a feeling that isn’t a good thing


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> My point is that all laws everywhere apply to Facebook, since their operations are global. If they were sued in a German court, they would not be able to claim Section 230. Even if it were repealed, it would have no effect on them.


That's an interesting idea of how respective countries' laws might apply to a global corporation, but you're mostly wrong.

A German citizen can sue Facebook in the US, sure. A country's court can do whatever the hell it wants. Hell, some court in Yemen just sentenced Donald Trump to the death penalty a couple weeks ago. But then comes the question: "What are you gonna do about it?"

If the US government won't agree to play along with the German (or Yemeni) court you used in your example, there isn't much the German government can do (this would actually be the EU, I think, but we'll put that aside). They could block Germans' access to Facebook, sure. They could stage an invasion of the US for the purpose of extraditing Mark Zuckerberg. But ultimately, it's the US law that matters to these companies.

You might have read about cases where a multinational corporation establishes an independent legal entity in a foreign country. A well-known example of this is Apple's business in the EU and the associated bullshit about how they use their Irish entity for "tax avoidance". Now, tax purposes are always a consideration, but another important reason for structuring a business this way is compliance with local laws. For example: due to a German law prohibiting holocaust denial, Facebook banned such posts from its platform in Germany several years ago (Facebook had not done this worldwide until very recently, and only due to political pressure, not outright legal prohibition). Twitter voluntarily blocks certain accounts in Turkey in exchange for the Turkish government allowing it to operate.



hundredpercent said:


> Speech laws apply to the users of the site. If speech laws apply to the provider, they're already fucked.


You know this is the whole reason we're talking about section 230 and why its repeal would be bad, right?

When discussing the law, "speech" covers a broad scope of activities beyond an individual speaking or writing. When you hear somebody say "freedom of the press", they're still talking about "freedom of speech".


----------



## HumanHive (Oct 15, 2020)

Youtube is down too. Spooky.


----------



## Sperghetti (Oct 15, 2020)

I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship. Getting rid of it outright isn’t going to make the moderation less restrictive, it’s just going to kill these sites entirely by rendering them inoperable, along with every other space on the internet where the average person can publicly post content. Even in the absolute “best” case scenario, it would just kill off anybody who wasn’t _already_ a multi-billion dollar corporation who could afford a team of lawyers to defend themselves from the inevitable torrent of libel lawsuits. (In other words, pretty much anyone _except_ Twitter and Facebook.)

Threatening to get rid of Section 230 protections is basically a combination of threatening nuclear annihilation, and the misguided belief that Twitter and Facebook are the only places discussion happens on the internet.

IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Oct 15, 2020)

Does Ajit have any real power to actually force his interpretation of Section 230? Don't any change to the law need to come from Congress? Is this just going to be him clarifying him and Trumps views on Section 230 and what they want from any proposed changes? Or is this guy about to use the Constitution to wipe his ass? 

I'm hoping this announcement is just him saying this is what Section 230 is supposed to protect and that he wants from future bills. Then I'm hoping the Dems tell him to choke on a dick and nothing happens.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

Sperghetti said:


> I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship.



My understanding is that this isn't the promise. Rather, each side claims that Facebook/Twitter should be responsible for publishing "misinformation" or something like that. So Republicans say "Facebook is profiting by promoting Democrat lies from CNN and silencing Fox News" while Democrats say "Facebook is profiting by promoting mask deniers and QAnon".

Anybody who seriously puts forward the argument that it would bring about a lightening of censorship is literally Terri Schiavo.



Sperghetti said:


> IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.



I'm pretty apathetic about "holding Twitter/Facebook accountable" or anything like that.

Like, yes, people often hold opinions you'd find unsavory. People are often stupid and gullible. But what the fuck does Facebook have to do with that?

If you're seriously getting online and allowing yourself to be seriously influenced by a Facebook page called "Woke Blacks" or sitting on Twitter waiting for the next QAnon drop, you're dumb as fuck whether you're online or not. Actual campaign-sponsored political ads are every bit as retarded as anything some "Russian troll operation" ever generated.

It's not like the _one thing_ standing between these fucks and enlightened political reasoning is social media. It's just that they're out in the open for all of us to see instead of all cloistered in some Pentecostal church throwing live rattlesnakes at each other.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

glow said:


> Not a lawyer (as you're about to see), but I wonder if he would get caught out by the CLOUD act:


That's about U.S.-based technology companies.


glow said:


> I'm not sure how this interacts with Section 230 but the fact that he is the administrator of the site means that he's got to comply with warrants no matter where the site is physically hosted.


Yes, but those are issued by a court. This forum already complies with court orders and subpoenas, the problem is frivolous defamation suits.



malt ipecac said:


> That's an interesting idea of how respective countries' laws might apply to a global corporation, but you're mostly wrong.
> 
> A German citizen can sue Facebook in the US, sure. A country's court can do whatever the hell it wants. Hell, some court in Yemen just sentenced Donald Trump to the death penalty a couple weeks ago. But then comes the question: "What are you gonna do about it?"
> 
> If the US government won't agree to play along with the German (or Yemeni) court you used in your example, there isn't much the German government can do (this would actually be the EU, I think, but we'll put that aside). They could block Germans' access to Facebook, sure. They could stage an invasion of the US for the purpose of extraditing Mark Zuckerberg. But ultimately, it's the US law that matters to these companies.


Facebook has a German subsidiary. It has offices, assets, and employees there. Facebook has been sued in EU courts, and lost. A German citizen can sue Facebook in a German court. The EU routinely hands out fines to international megacorporations over GDPR stuff, which said companies pay.

Facebook doesn't ignore German law and spends large amounts of money complying with it. This means it already has the necessary infrastructure in place to comply with a repeal of Section 230, which means it wouldn't be a big deal for them.


malt ipecac said:


> You might have read about cases where a multinational corporation establishes an independent legal entity in a foreign country. A well-known example of this is Apple's business in the EU and the associated bullshit about how they use their Irish entity for "tax avoidance". Now, tax purposes are always a consideration, but another important reason for structuring a business this way is compliance with local laws. For example: due to a German law prohibiting holocaust denial, Facebook banned such posts from its platform in Germany several years ago (Facebook had not done this worldwide until very recently, and only due to political pressure, not outright legal prohibition). Twitter voluntarily blocks certain accounts in Turkey in exchange for the Turkish government allowing it to operate.


It's certainly easier to have a local subsidiary if you're doing business there, yes. German Holocaust denial laws only apply to content in the German language, but a German-American wouldn't have been able to do Holocaust denial in German, even in the good old days.


malt ipecac said:


> You know this is the whole reason we're talking about section 230 and why its repeal would be bad, right?


Yes. I'm just pointing out that the US' speech laws (extremely good, very strong) are irrelevant to a discussion about the US' safe harbor laws for Internet intermediaries (OK, reasonably strong)


malt ipecac said:


> When discussing the law, "speech" covers a broad scope of activities beyond an individual speaking or writing. When you hear somebody say "freedom of the press", they're still talking about "freedom of speech".


Freedom of the press doesn't apply to this site, since it isn't a publisher.



Sperghetti said:


> I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship. Getting rid of it outright isn’t going to make the moderation less restrictive, it’s just going to kill these sites entirely by rendering them inoperable, along with every other space on the internet where the average person can publicly post content. Even in the absolute “best” case scenario, it would just kill off anybody who wasn’t _already_ a multi-billion dollar corporation who could afford a team of lawyers to defend themselves from the inevitable torrent of libel lawsuits. (In other words, pretty much anyone _except_ Twitter and Facebook.)
> 
> Threatening to get rid of Section 230 protections is basically a combination of threatening nuclear annihilation, and the misguided belief that Twitter and Facebook are the only places discussion happens on the internet.
> 
> IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.


The purpose is to kill Facebook and Twitter, yes. If you can't spread your message on those sites, you basically can't spread it, which means you either have to force them to allow you on or kill them outright.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Freedom of the press doesn't apply to this site, since it isn't a publisher.


Ok, I think I'm having a hard time understanding your view.

Which of the following would you say is a "publisher" in the eyes of today's US law?

The Wall Street Journal
Twitter
Penguin Books
Facebook
CNN
Reddit
Kiwi Farms
Which of the following would you say would be a "publisher" in the eyes of US law with section 230 repealed?

The Wall Street Journal
Twitter
Penguin Books
Facebook
CNN
Reddit
Kiwi Farms

When answering, keep in mind the following text, which I've copied directly from Section 230:



> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> Ok, I think I'm having a hard time understanding your view.
> 
> Which of the following would you say is a "publisher" in the eyes of today's US law?
> 
> ...


WSJ, Penguin Books, and CNN.


malt ipecac said:


> Which of the following would you say would be a "publisher" in the eyes of US law with section 230 repealed?
> 
> The Wall Street Journal
> Twitter
> ...


All of them. In that case, they'd have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy.


----------



## Agent Abe Caprine (Oct 15, 2020)

Lawsuits are expensive. Even if Null won one, he'd be bled dry of money. Without money, he can't run this site. Servers and hardware for them are not free.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

Aberforth said:


> Lawsuits are expensive. Even if Null won one, he'd be bled dry of money. Without money, he can't run this site. Servers and hardware for them are not free.


That's only the case in the USA. Virtually all other jurisdictions have the English rule, where the loser of the case pays both parties' expenses.
Furthermore, some jurisdictions require you to post a performance bond of $25k or so before filing anything. That would weed out most lolcow litigants.


----------



## fartsnstuf (Oct 15, 2020)

*sees Ajit Pai getting right back into the mix*

welp, shit


----------



## Sperghetti (Oct 15, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> My understanding is that this isn't the promise. Rather, each side claims that Facebook/Twitter should be responsible for publishing "misinformation" or something like that. So Republicans say "Facebook is profiting by promoting Democrat lies from CNN and silencing Fox News" while Democrats say "Facebook is profiting by promoting mask deniers and QAnon".
> 
> Anybody who seriously puts forward the argument that it would bring about a lightening of censorship is literally Terri Schiavo.
> 
> ...



I meant that more as the people who believe these sites are censoring them and want to see them punished. Removing Section 230 is going to solve that in the same way that burning your house down is going to solve a termite problem. If legal action were to be taken, I think the best route to go would be proving that these sites are violating existing rules, not throwing the protections out for everyone.

The people that argue that Twitter/Facebook should be held accountable for user posts is a whole different can of worms. I’d say the “Twitter needs to be punished for censoring me” crowd doesn’t understand that there are internet communities outside of major social media sites, while the “Twitter needs to be held accountable for content” crowd doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between Twitter and a newspaper.

But I agree, social media isn’t leading people to believe stuff they wouldn’t believe otherwise. It's just making it obvious just _how many_ people are willing to believe crazy, extreme things (even people that you otherwise like and respect), and I don't think a lot of people can, or want to, accept that.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

I posted that last bit as an edit to my post, my bad. Got too excited with the post button.

So in light of that:


> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Are we in agreement that the revocation of Section 230 would make Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter into "publishers", meaning they would "have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy?"

That is why the repeal of Section 230 would be disastrous for a site like this one.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> I posted that last bit as an edit to my post, my bad. Got too excited with the post button.
> 
> So in light of that:
> 
> Are we in agreement that the revocation of Section 230 would make Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter into "publishers", meaning they would "have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy?"


Yes.


malt ipecac said:


> That is why the repeal of Section 230 would be disastrous for a site like this one.


Registering a company abroad and shipping a few servers overseas is hardly disastrous.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 15, 2020)

fartsnstuf said:


> *sees Ajit Pai getting right back into the mix*
> 
> welp, shit


He has found a street with very little feces. He can’t ignore this


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 15, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Registering a company abroad and shipping a few servers overseas is hardly disastrous.


At this point, we've reached an empirical question. I don't agree with that statement, but if that's all it would take to get around a repeal of section 230, you'd be right.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 15, 2020)

Not sure why my phone double posted. Technically half-posted. How the fuck do you delete?


----------



## Knojkamarangasan_#4 (Oct 15, 2020)

Spoiler: Doomer rant



What I hope is that if it happens, normal people will notice just how fucked it will get and revolt. But I doubt it. Let's face it. The average person is content with having enough comfyness to eat, sleep, and fuck+something else. They just hear the standard talk "oh lets fight x 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 sound so good lets trigger the left". Most doesn't even care about stuff like free speech in the end. It's just a fancy word until it becomes an inconvinience to them. Though if anything, horrendous companies like fb and twitter caused this themselves by being totalitarian assholes but it won't hurt them in the long run. Yet more shit to ruin the fun place that is the internet so that every random person can post pics of their cats and other mundane shit.

Also regardless of the impact this is just one step until the internet becomes as pristine and clean as old
media. Remember, having people to whatever they want is dangerous, big people in power dont like that!


I will still stand my ground and hold on to the fact that boomers were the worst thing to ever happen to this planet. All the retarded qtards and bASEd mAgaPedes celebrating that "now we will finally be able to sue facebook" are beyond stupid.


*TLR 
Giving normies access to the internet was a mistake*


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 15, 2020)

Knojkamarangasan_#4 said:


> Spoiler: Doomer rant
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s almost poetic. Boomers destroyed everything else. They weren’t going to leave this earth without killing this too


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 15, 2020)

The reason why Trump and Biden want to remove Section 230 is because of Facebook and Twitter. The only difference is why _they _want to- Trump is doing this over petty reasons as twitter removing his tweets and Facebook doing the same with his posts over there, claiming they're censoring him. While Biden and the DNC are doing so to lead a misguided attempt to curb cyber bullying and appeal to advertisers.

It's a losing scenario for anyone who uses the internet because that means the government and the websites themselves can take more control of the internet and effectively ban anyone they don't like from the US or elsewhere from it. The average joe doesn't want that to happen, so that's why many are against this happening. Null doesn't want this to happen because of all the lawsuits that'd come from it since the section also protects Kiwi from any severe punishments. And it doesn't help that it could easily set precedents with other countries if it does come to pass since most of the internet is either based in the US or have servers in the US.

Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues? And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 15, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues?


The important questions are where the servers are based, where the company operating the website is registered, and where the intellectual property (brand, domain name) is held.

There's many countries that have laxer laws on hosting. Most of South America, parts of the Middle East (Lebanon, and I think Israel and Algeria), and some countries in Asia (Singapore).


Jewelsmakerguy said:


> And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.


The EU assigns liability under the E-commere on a notice basis, like the US does with the DMCA, but with all content. What you want is a place like Chile or Singapore, where you are never liable but have to comply with orders from administrative bodies or courts.


----------



## Bunny Tracks (Oct 15, 2020)

I hate Ajit Pai with all of my hate.

Boomers are dumb, ignorant, self-serving fucks, but they'll at least pretend to pull this shit for "the greater good". Ajit Pai is just a cocky, malicious, and sadistic shithead who doesn't even try to hide that he's a smug snake in the grass.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> You know, I’m not even sure how far a new rule would go with them. Like how much power could it have? They can’t invalidate a law. But they sure as hell can influence how it’s handled.



The FCC isn't a court, and it certainly isn't an appeal court, but it could certainly decide how § 230 applies to its own regulatory actions, which are subject to the law.  A doctrine called _Chevron_ deference, based on the case of the same name, means that courts, when addressing such legal interpretations by agencies with responsibility for enacting such laws, generally defer to the administrative agency.

However, the FCC has no real authority to decide what happens when private parties sue each other.  That is entirely court-created doctrine that the FCC has nothing to do with.  They are very unlikely to defer to the FCC's general opinion about something that doesn't concern them.  Especially from a smarmy street shitting piece of garbage like Ajit Pai.



Strange Wilderness said:


> Does Ajit have any real power to actually force his interpretation of Section 230? Don't any change to the law need to come from Congress?



Not really.  Only in the context of FCC regulatory actions, and even there, rulemaking is subject to public comment and other processes, and formalities have to be adhered to.  As much as I detest that motherfucker, I don't think FCC regulatory actions are a huge threat to the Farms specifically.  What we have to worry about is private civil liability.  The government does not give a single fuck about us.


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Oct 16, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> The reason why Trump and Biden want to remove Section 230 is because of Facebook and Twitter. The only difference is why _they _want to- Trump is doing this over petty reasons as twitter removing his tweets and Facebook doing the same with his posts over there, claiming they're censoring him. While Biden and the DNC are doing so to lead a misguided attempt to curb cyber bullying and appeal to advertisers.
> 
> It's a losing scenario for anyone who uses the internet because that means the government and the websites themselves can take more control of the internet and effectively ban anyone they don't like from the US or elsewhere from it. The average joe doesn't want that to happen, so that's why many are against this happening. Null doesn't want this to happen because of all the lawsuits that'd come from it since the section also protects Kiwi from any severe punishments. And it doesn't help that it could easily set precedents with other countries if it does come to pass since most of the internet is either based in the US or have servers in the US.
> 
> Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues? And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.


Technically he could run servers in some remote island country like Norfolk or Tuvalu.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

Kafferlord said:


> Technically he could run servers in some remote island country like Norfolk or Tuvalu.



He's not going to bother.  Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity.  At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.

How clearly does he have to explain this?  Because he's done it lots of fucking times.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 16, 2020)

The legal liability aspect of repealing 230 won’t just hurt KF. It’ll hurt every dissident political site as well: the ADL and SPLC are some of the most vexatious litigants out there. Roberta Kaplan-types will have a field day. Ironic some alt-right Trump ballwashers cheer this on when it’ll lead to their few platforms getting BTFO.


----------



## Solid Hyrax (Oct 16, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> The FCC isn't a court, and it certainly isn't an appeal court, but it could certainly decide how § 230 applies to its own regulatory actions, which are subject to the law.  A doctrine called _Chevron_ deference, based on the case of the same name, means that courts, when addressing such legal interpretations by agencies with responsibility for enacting such laws, generally defer to the administrative agency.
> 
> However, the FCC has no real authority to decide what happens when private parties sue each other.  That is entirely court-created doctrine that the FCC has nothing to do with.  They are very unlikely to defer to the FCC's general opinion about something that doesn't concern them.  Especially from a smarmy street shitting piece of garbage like Ajit Pai.
> 
> ...


This is what I want to believe as well, I doubt this poo have any say on the interpretation of the law.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

Solid Hyrax said:


> This is what I want to believe as well, I doubt this poo have any say on the interpretation of the law.


I'm not saying this is a good development at all.  I'm just saying this specific FCC action doesn't have much direct relevance.  Anything that directs continued attention at § 230 is bad for the world and Internet free speech in general because it just guarantees Congress doing something incredibly stupid the instant it gets its shit together enough to try.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 16, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Anything that directs continued attention at § 230 is bad for the world and Internet free speech in general because it just guarantees Congress doing something incredibly stupid the instant it gets its shit together enough to try.


Unfortunately, this is true and generalizable. I also look at virtually any legislative initiative in this way.

If you aren't sure what Congress will do on a contentious political issue, it's safe to first remove all the good options from the list of possible outcomes.

And, hell, this isn't even limited to "Congress" because apparently it's nowadays cool for the Supreme Court to simply "discover" new laws or for the president to rule by "pen and phone" diktat.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> If you aren't sure what Congress will do on a contentious political issue, it's safe to first remove all the good options from the list of possible outcomes.


Nobody seems to realize this though.  You would be more likely to get good results from casting yarrow stalks and consulting the I Ching or rolling dice than on what the absolute morons in Congress will do.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 16, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Nobody seems to realize this though.  You would be more likely to get good results from casting yarrow stalks and consulting the I Ching


That's funny. I had never heard of the I Ching so I had to look that up.

I prefer to think of "obstructionism!!!!!!!" as "salutary inaction".

edit - I tried to give you the grin sticker but I do not have permission, so you just get the thumb.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 16, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> He's not going to bother.  Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity.  At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.
> 
> How clearly does he have to explain this?  Because he's done it lots of fucking times.


Doesn't help that some of the injunctions he's gotten aren't just US-based. Kiwi is basically a worldwide threat at this point. Just because he's got his servers outside the US doesn't mean it won't stop some other country from targeting him or the site next.

At that point, who wouldn't want to just call it quits?



Terrorist said:


> The legal liability aspect of repealing 230 won’t just hurt KF. It’ll hurt every dissident political site as well: the ADL and SPLC are some of the most vexatious litigants out there. Roberta Kaplan-types will have a field day. Ironic some alt-right Trump ballwashers cheer this on when it’ll lead to their few platforms getting BTFO.


What else do you expect from shortsighted idiocy?


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 16, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> He's not going to bother.  Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity.  At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.
> 
> How clearly does he have to explain this?  Because he's done it lots of fucking times.


There are tons of places that allow you to form an LLC, ignore foreign judgements, and have favorable precedent or statute for Internet stuff.
Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?


Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Doesn't help that some of the injunctions he's gotten aren't just US-based. Kiwi is basically a worldwide threat at this point. Just because he's got his servers outside the US doesn't mean it won't stop some other country from targeting him or the site next.
> 
> At that point, who wouldn't want to just call it quits?


Do you really think countries will target someone over civil bullshit? New Zealand might, because that's actually criminal, but they're not very powerful. It's not like anybody is going to send hitmen over to enforce a default judgement for slander.


----------



## malt ipecac (Oct 16, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> There are tons of places that allow you to form an LLC, ignore foreign judgements, and have favorable precedent or statute for Internet stuff.
> Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?


At this point, I'm officially declaring you "too stubborn to debate". You're essentially just repeating the same claim -- "it's super quick & easy to just move your website host to a foreign country! Why are you tards so worried about a change in American law?"

I don't think you're carefully reading the responses you receive.


----------



## knobslobbin (Oct 16, 2020)

Gab appealing to Trump to keep section 230 intact today: https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230/

So they are OK with that huge list of ways they are being fucked over? Something isn't right if you've been raped repeatedly and locked in the basement, and your biggest wish is for things to stay the same.

I'm not a gab user maybe I'm missing something? Hope springs eternal I guess.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 16, 2020)

knobslobbin said:


> Gab appealing to Trump to keep section 230 intact today: https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230/
> 
> So they are OK with that huge list of ways they are being fucked over? Something isn't right if you've been raped repeatedly and locked in the basement, and your biggest wish is for things to stay the same.
> 
> I'm not a gab user maybe I'm missing something? Hope springs eternal I guess.


Torba is just a dumbass


----------



## HumanHive (Oct 16, 2020)

All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.


----------



## WolfeTone (Oct 16, 2020)

The fact that there are so many useful idiots egging on the destruction of the internet, over their inability to process a company's right to establishment, especially a neoliberal social media platform who's shares are primarily owned by the Saudis, baffles me to no end.

It seems to me that lolbertarian gubment minimalism is more of a disease than a cure, at this current stage of America.


----------



## Orange Man Costume (Oct 16, 2020)

Wasn't there supposed to be some traffic qualifier (minimum of x million users) before the Trump 230 changes go into affect, basically ruling out smaller places like the farms? Or is that not happening anymore? Or was that just fake and gay?

I'm all for 230 changes that fucks Twitter & Facebook but leaves the smaller guys alone.


----------



## Terrifik (Oct 16, 2020)

Orange Man Costume said:


> Wasn't there supposed to be some traffic qualifier (minimum of x million users) before the Trump 230 changes go into affect, basically ruling out smaller places like the farms? Or is that not happening anymore? Or was that just fake and gay?
> 
> I'm all for 230 changes that fucks Twitter & Facebook but leaves the smaller guys alone.


I Believe that was UK & Austrial & European union 
The US Rules was more mainstream because United Stated had controll of the Rains of Internet now, Moving towards censor restrict for the right people & information being held back or charged.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?


How could you think they wouldn't?  Holy fuck there are like three active lolsuits against Null personally right now even with § 230.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 16, 2020)

malt ipecac said:


> At this point, I'm officially declaring you "too stubborn to debate". You're essentially just repeating the same claim -- "it's super quick & easy to just move your website host to a foreign country! Why are you tards so worried about a change in American law?"
> 
> I don't think you're carefully reading the responses you receive.


Logistically, it's not very hard. Moving a server is trivial, and so is redomiciling the legal entity. This is obvious, and everyone agrees. The real question is, would this be ineffectual?


AnOminous said:


> How could you think they wouldn't?  Holy fuck there are like three active lolsuits against Null personally right now even with § 230.


Owners/members aren't liable for actions of their companies, as long as they run them properly. The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?


----------



## Return of the Freaker (Oct 16, 2020)

HumanHive said:


> All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.


This is nothing new here. Remember when Sulemani got killed and Null and a bunch of others lost their shit about how Drumpf betrayed us all to DA JOOZ and we were all going to get drafted to die in Iran? Good times back then, it's been a rough day occupying Isfahan.


----------



## ConfederateIrishman (Oct 16, 2020)

HumanHive said:


> All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.





Return of the Freaker said:


> This is nothing new here. Remember when Sulemani got killed and Null and a bunch of others lost their shit about how Drumpf betrayed us all to DA JOOZ and we were all going to get drafted to die in Iran? Good times back then, it's been a rough day occupying Isfahan.


So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?


----------



## HumanHive (Oct 16, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?


Nobody is talking about the Patriot Act. Stop conflating topics.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 16, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Owners/members aren't liable for actions of their companies, as long as they run them properly. The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?



They would be if they ever got past the point of just literally dying out of pure retardation without even a response. 

Arguing the theory of it is pointless anyway it's just a line nool has personally drawn, 230 goes away, so does he.  None of my opinions or yours are going to change that.


----------



## knobslobbin (Oct 17, 2020)

Cruz and Graham talking big, we'll see if it amounts to anything


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Oct 17, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?


Payment processing is part of the problem, but addressing just that doesn't really do much to actually correct the issues of internet monopolies colluding to censor any form of wrong think.  By the time things get down to the individual poster, there are a great many layers of monopolistic entities that can easily force layers wanting to allow for free discourse to bend the knee.  This is also something which is only going to get worse too since as the (((entities))) wanting to gain more control over the internet do steadily gain more control over the internet, you will see a strong negative correlation with the amount of resistance which is directed towards these entities.  This is because any evidence which could be brought to the forefront in order to criticize these monopolies will become increasingly more obscure and esoteric due to fewer and fewer people examining it due to it becoming more and more difficult to access.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?


With proper payment processing, you still won't have the virality of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter back in the good old days.
With uncensored social media but no payment processing, there will still be people making content for no financial gain.


----------



## HonsPonzud (Oct 17, 2020)

Grubby Grubby corporate hands on every facet of the internet soon.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 17, 2020)

ConfederateIrishman said:


> So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?


He’s right though. And the payment processors isn’t his only solution.

Null’s final solution for a free internet also includes allowing carve-outs for certain scenarios. (ie allow deplatformed people to sue in civil court). And why not? For many there is a financial fallout for them personally. Let the courts decide if the expulsion was warranted, and if not, how much financial damage was done to the individual or entity affected.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> He’s right though. And the payment processors isn’t his only solution.
> 
> Null’s final solution for a free internet also includes allowing carve-outs for certain scenarios. (ie allow deplatformed people to sue in civil court). And why not? For many there is a financial fallout for them personally. Let the courts decide if the expulsion was warranted, and if not, how much financial damage was done to the individual or entity affected.


That's the Clarence Thomas plan. Section 230, as drafted, just says the following:
1) If you run a forum, the users take liability for their posts
2) If you run a forum and moderate it, the users still take liability for what they didn't post
But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
"Sites can't be sued for anything, ever, relating to moderation or even content they post"

There's nothing in s230 that strictly says you can't bring a claim for, say, product defects against Facebook. But the courts have interpreted it that way.


			https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 17, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
> "Sites can't be sued for anything, ever, relating to moderation or even content they post"



I'm totally okay with that interpretation.  Other than the "content they post" thing.  And Congress is a bunch of absolute morons enough I have absolutely zero trust in anything they have to say on the subject.  If anything, I'd add something to 230 just making Congress liable for anything they or their supporters say and then every single one of us could constantly sue Congress any time they pissed us off with their dumb utterances.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> I'm totally okay with that interpretation.  Other than the "content they post" thing.  And Congress is a bunch of absolute morons enough I have absolutely zero trust in anything they have to say on the subject.  If anything, I'd add something to 230 just making Congress liable for anything they or their supporters say and then every single one of us could constantly sue Congress any time they pissed us off with their dumb utterances.


The Clarence Thomas plan has a good chance of succeeding, without involving Congress.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 17, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> That's the Clarence Thomas plan. Section 230, as drafted, just says the following:
> 1) If you run a forum, the users take liability for their posts
> 2) If you run a forum and moderate it, the users still take liability for what they didn't post
> But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
> ...


Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.

and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.
> 
> and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to


Courts did humor lawsuits against Twitter for being banned (see Taylor v. Twitter), but plaintiffs pulled out because it didn't look favorable to them. So it doesn't seem impossible, no.

Payment processors would help, but it wouldn't fix the Facebook problem. You need to get on the platforms, otherwise it's simply impossible.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 17, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.
> 
> and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to



I wouldn't mind at all a return to Usenet style, where the only bans you could do would be spam-related, and otherwise, platforms would have to act as common carriers and put up with absolutely everyone.  Users, of course, could use their own filtering.  (Also in case I was being too subtle I was actually saying CDMP dindu nuffin bring him back he reformin he life.)

But Congress is more stupid than you can possibly imagine and the only way sites like this exist is the sanity of courts and the weird prescience of some subcommunity in Congress who threw § 230 into something otherwise called the "Communications Decency Act" that was otherwise thrown out as completely unconstitutional.

Do not expect magic like that ever to happen again.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 17, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Courts did humor lawsuits against Twitter for being banned (see Taylor v. Twitter), but plaintiffs pulled out because it didn't look favorable to them. So it doesn't seem impossible, no.
> 
> Payment processors would help, but it wouldn't fix the Facebook problem. You need to get on the platforms, otherwise it's simply impossible.


Right. They pulled out because they would lose.

whats the Facebook problem?


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> Right. They pulled out because they would lose.
> 
> whats the Facebook problem?


They pulled out because they were Jared Taylor, and because things were different back then. It's very possible someone more sympathetic could win.

Even if you get Gab working and well-funded, you'll only ever be able to talk to other conservatives there. You need access to mainstream platforms to get your message out. Having extremely well-functioning alt-tech wouldn't help this much.


----------



## Symalsa (Oct 17, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> They pulled out because they were Jared Taylor, and because things were different back then. It's very possible someone more sympathetic could win.
> 
> Even if you get Gab working and well-funded, you'll only ever be able to talk to other conservatives there. You need access to mainstream platforms to get your message out. Having extremely well-functioning alt-tech wouldn't help this much.



you’re right that a well-functioning Gab wouldn’t help.

But people don’t have a right to a spot on a platform. And they especially don’t have a right to have a spot on a platform to get their message out. That’s not applicable anywhere else.

ex: I own a private hall and - for arguments sake - I let the local union hold meetings there. And for arguments sake I allow them to do this because I agree with their message and goals. No one else has a right to use the space without my permission, especially if they’re espousing a message I don’t like. Of course it would help those others in getting the message out but I’m not forced to comply.

And it’s even more ridiculous for social media sites. Twitter claims to have 60 million US users. I think it’s lower. It seems to be about 48 million. How many are unique? 35 million? 40 million? The numbers aren’t all that important. But at what threshold does a company lose its property rights?

Does the same argument apply to my private hall? If 20% of the town has used it does that mean I can no longer decide who gets a platform there? On top of it all I’m now also legally liable for anything those people say or do while on the premises? It would be wiser for me to close it. After all, it’s not really mine at that point anyway.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 17, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> you’re right that a well-functioning Gab wouldn’t help.
> 
> But people don’t have a right to a spot on a platform. And they especially don’t have a right to have a spot on a platform to get their message out. That’s not applicable anywhere else.
> 
> ...


If you apply that principle consistently, freedom of speech becomes a total joke.
* Hey, the grocery store is a private business, they can deny anyone service!
* Hey, your landlord is a private business, they don't have to let you rent there!
* Hey, banks are private businesses, you have no right to get a loan from them!
* Hey, your employer is a private business, they're under no obligation to employ you!
You can apply this indefinitely. If you do, freedom of speech would become an entity that exists on paper only, like a Cayman Islands shell corporation. You would have the theoretical right, but the moment you exercised it you'd be unemployed, broke, homeless, and hungry.

As for your point about where to draw a line - this is just the sorites paradox. If I run a nightclub, it's totally acceptable to ethnically discriminate, or to tell ugly/fat guests to fuck off. If I run a restaurant, maybe. If I run a fast food joint, no. If I run a grocery store, absolutely not.


Respect the Erect said:


> Does the same argument apply to my private hall? If 20% of the town has used it does that mean I can no longer decide who gets a platform there? On top of it all I’m now also legally liable for anything those people say or do while on the premises? It would be wiser for me to close it. After all, it’s not really mine at that point anyway.


It would be one or the other. You either run it as a civilized, regulated place, where you can tell people to fuck off for any reason or no reason at all. In that case, you implicitly support those you let in, and are responsible for what they do. Or you run it as a public square, and just let anyone in for any reason.

What you shouldn't be able to do is run something which in every way, shape, and form resembles a public square, but actually isn't. If you could, the 1st amendment would be rendered totally toothless.


----------



## Terrifik (Oct 20, 2020)

Welp October Surprise    
Google is SLAMED With Anti-Trust Lawsuit!​Which will still politicy 230 but will probally be washed clean with Bidden Presiedent.
But, undue power if google wins!
What could possibly go wroung!





************************************
Side Note:    The kraken has come to Bargen with Bazos (amazon/Twitch) with DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
Couldn't happen to good set of people.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Oct 21, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Logistically, it's not very hard. Moving a server is trivial, and so is redomiciling the legal entity. This is obvious, and everyone agrees. The real question is, would this be ineffectual?
> 
> Owners/members aren't liable for actions of their companies, as long as they run them properly. The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?


No, the lawsuits against Null personally don't proceed further because they're filed by idiots who are trying to file them against an individual who wouldn't be in any danger even if S 230 was repealed, when if they wanted to to get anywhere they would need to file them against the corporate entity. The corporate entity which is protected by... Section 230.

Obviously, the US is not a free country, but where is better? The UK? lol. Poland? Hungary? Run by stooges. Serbia? Run by anti-human liberal forces.


hundredpercent said:


> There are tons of places that allow you to form an LLC, ignore foreign judgements, and have favorable precedent or statute for Internet stuff.
> Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?


Yeah, I mean, if Null incorporated in The Gambia, he'd only have to worry about being legally targeted if he went back to America to visit his family or something. Why wouldn't he take on that burden for the great recompse that comes with running a lolcow forum?

Oh wait, I forgot about that minor detail, the unlawful prosecution of Julian Assange. Turns out you can't be free anywhere if it bothers the jews that own the US government. So yeah, Section 230 does matter.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 21, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> No, the lawsuits against Null personally don't proceed further because they're filed by idiots who are trying to file them against an individual who wouldn't be in any danger even if S 230 was repealed, when if they wanted to to get anywhere they would need to file them against the corporate entity. The corporate entity which is protected by... Section 230.


Right, that's what I mean. Even if everyone had strict liability, Null isn't responsible for Lolcow LLC.


3119967d0c said:


> Obviously, the US is not a free country, but where is better? The UK? lol. Poland? Hungary? Run by stooges. Serbia? Run by anti-human liberal forces.
> 
> Yeah, I mean, if Null incorporated in The Gambia, he'd only have to worry about being legally targeted if he went back to America to visit his family or something. Why wouldn't he take on that burden for the great recompse that comes with running a lolcow forum?


That's what I mean. If Lolcow LLC were a Gambian company, and it were sued in a US court and didn't show up, then how could they collect on Null for that? If not, then he can just incorporate in whatever country and ignore foreign court judgements.


3119967d0c said:


> Oh wait, I forgot about that minor detail, the unlawful prosecution of Julian Assange. Turns out you can't be free anywhere if it bothers the jews that own the US government. So yeah, Section 230 does matter.


...do you really think the Jews are going to be stopped from rape hoaxing Null by *squints* section 230?


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Oct 21, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Right, that's what I mean. Even if everyone had strict liability, Null isn't responsible for Lolcow LLC.


You fucking idiot. Your previous argument, "The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?" was specious crap. As I pointed out, you enormous retard, they are dismissed because the retards file against Null personally instead of against his corporate body which they would not be able to take action against because of 230.

With that gone, all bets are off.

You are a fucking idiot who should die in a fire, tied to Matthew Prince with a 225mm wide strip of rubber.


hundredpercent said:


> If Lolcow LLC were a Gambian company, and it were sued in a US court and didn't show up, then how could they collect on Null for that? If not, then he can just incorporate in whatever country and ignore foreign court judgements.


Well yes, if Null incorporated elsewhere, he would only have to worry about lawsuits in US court preventing him from ever returning to the US for any reason.

And from foreign governments deporting him to the US.

And from foreign companies not actually providing any protection to free speech once they came under pressure, which is already a concern with US companies protected by 230.

I'm shocked he doesn't want to embrace being treated worse than Julian Assange.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 21, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> Well yes, if Null incorporated elsewhere, he would only have to worry about lawsuits in US court preventing him from ever returning to the US for any reason.


Can a civil judgement in the US against your company result in civil liability for you personally? It's a basic principle of corporate law that owners aren't responsible for their corporation's debts.


3119967d0c said:


> And from foreign governments deporting him to the US.


Can you be extradited on unpaid debt? A civil tort can never result in a loss of freedom.


----------



## 2021Murder (Oct 21, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> ...do you really think the Jews are going to be stopped from rape hoaxing Null by *squints* section 230?


according to @Unassuming Local Guy the answer is yes. in fact jews just want to protect us and in fact you're a nazi for not wanting to go with the destruction of section 230


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Oct 21, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> Can a civil judgement in the US against your company result in civil liability for you personally? It's a basic principle of corporate law that owners aren't responsible for their corporation's debts.
> 
> Can you be extradited on unpaid debt? A civil tort can never result in a loss of freedom.


You are a fucking retard.


----------



## Desu Mountain (Oct 28, 2020)

The senate hearing on FB/Twitter has started.


----------



## 66andtwothirds (Oct 28, 2020)

so basically a lot of breitbart type sites or even the daily mail would probably close their comment sections for good as now they are held accountable for what commenters say?


----------



## Epsteindidnothingwrong (Oct 28, 2020)

The Doll is Ruth... KEK


----------



## Desu Mountain (Oct 28, 2020)

I can't listen to this shit anymore. The Senate's dumbass questions ("Mr. Dorsey, do you deny the Holocaust? Do you hate Israel? Do you support the murder of Jews?"), and Jack's and Zuck's slimy answers and blatant lies are just pissing me off. This hearing isn't going anywhere.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Oct 28, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> With proper payment processing, you still won't have the virality of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter back in the good old days.
> With uncensored social media but no payment processing, there will still be people making content for no financial gain.


Dude, this is the real world, and in the real world people make content for money, not upvotes and compliments. Do you think Lowtax would of gave 2 shits about SomethingAwful after a year or so if he didn't charge tenbux for it? Do you think Tom Fulp would still be hosting Newgrounds if he kept it ad free and made free flash games all his life instead of selling commercial video games? Sure, one-off videos and memes will still be around, but anyone who wants to create consistent content and/or invest in a platform needs to be assured that whoever/whatever handles their money doesn't go "Uh oh you let someone say a bad word now fuck off" , because NO ONE is going to fucking bother spending a sizable portion of their life dealing with that possibility. They'd rather shut everything down, get off the internet, and work a 9-5 office job or some shit.


----------



## hundredpercent (Oct 29, 2020)

ScatmansWorld said:


> Dude, this is the real world, and in the real world people make content for money, not upvotes and compliments. Do you think Lowtax would of gave 2 shits about SomethingAwful after a year or so if he didn't charge tenbux for it? Do you think Tom Fulp would still be hosting Newgrounds if he kept it ad free and made free flash games all his life instead of selling commercial video games? Sure, one-off videos and memes will still be around, but anyone who wants to create consistent content and/or invest in a platform needs to be assured that whoever/whatever handles their money doesn't go "Uh oh you let someone say a bad word now fuck off" , because NO ONE is going to fucking bother spending a sizable portion of their life dealing with that possibility. They'd rather shut everything down, get off the internet, and work a 9-5 office job or some shit.


People on both sides are gonna make content regardless. If you allow people to spread it, but not profit off it, you're still going to get people like Gex who do it for political/humor purposes.
- appeared out of nowhere on 8chan
- posts one video on youtube
- goes viral, to the point where normie friends were sending it to me
- disappears off the face of the earth

If you allow them to profit off of it but not spread it, you're just gonna get grifters who stream useless trash and get donations from the few hundred people still watching them.

The Daily Stormer runs at a loss, Gex never monetized anything, this forum is hardly a cash cow. To be quite honest with you, I prefer the one-off videos and memes of /pol/ to the "consistent content and investment in platforms" that YouTube "content creators" offer.


----------



## D̥̜̖͗͆̿E̼̰VÔ̦Ȗ̟̹̮͊͋R͊̒ (Nov 26, 2020)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332175155104247808
		



			https://archive.md/WsVsQ
		


The dumbass is at it again.



EDIT: The actual proposed legislation isn't as dystopian as Trump's shitposting


			https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-proposed-section-230-legislation


----------



## Jack Awful (Nov 26, 2020)

██████ said:


> View attachment 1751486
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332175155104247808
> ...


I was gonna say that this could rally the never Trumpers into protecting 230, but they want to remove it too to censor the internet and get rid of us.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Nov 26, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> I was gonna say that this could rally the never Trumpers into protecting 230, but they want to remove it too to censor the internet and get rid of us.


How much did Kenyan King Obongo Husseini attack free speech on the internet?


----------



## Jack Awful (Nov 26, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> How much did Kenyan King Obongo Husseini attack free speech on the internet?





			https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke
		

https://archive.md/2bsEd
Idk, but Biden has shown interest in doing it.

He allegedly wants to reinstate Net Neutrality, but it won't do shit if 230 dies.


----------



## TFT-A9 (Nov 26, 2020)

Just waiting for Nool to have his big "disappear into the mists" moment.


----------



## Symalsa (Nov 29, 2020)

hundredpercent said:


> If you apply that principle consistently, freedom of speech becomes a total joke.
> * Hey, the grocery store is a private business, they can deny anyone service!
> * Hey, your landlord is a private business, they don't have to let you rent there!
> * Hey, banks are private businesses, you have no right to get a loan from them!
> ...


You’ve made every correct point and then said it was wrong. I’ve never seen this level before. Are you Kevin Logan?


----------



## Terrorist (Nov 30, 2020)

Republicans aren’t ignorant of 230 just because they’re old. That’s cope. You can’t tell me there’s not a single person in these discussions that understands what 230 is and what repealing it would do.

The real reason is they genuinely don’t want to do anything about big tech censorship. Like most anti-elite rhetoric from them it’s just empty grandstanding to rile up the base. The GOP is a corporatist party, under no circumstance will they tell their corporate donors “no”. Their internal party line has always been “muh free market, private corporations can do what they want, make ur own you snowflake”.

Ignore Trump’s tweets for a second - what has he *done* about big tech? Called them “MAGA companies” and given them massive tax cuts. He’s probably clueless about 230, but fed a convenient line about it by staffers, lobbyists, and LARPing phonies like Josh Hawley (who’s the right’s Liz Warren: fake dissident with the charisma of sawdust who defers to the party line 99% of the time).

Attacking 230 is perfect for the new fake-nationalist MO of the GOP. It sounds smart, serious, signals a move away from corporatism and towards anti-elitism...but ultimately plays right back into the hands of the liberal elite (which the GOP serves as the right flank of).


----------



## KingCoelacanth (Dec 1, 2020)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578
		


Trump just said 230 is a threat to our national security, will veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn't include a complete termination of 230.
How antisemetic to withhold whatever shekels the bill will grant to Israel.


----------



## The Perplexing Ms. Escape (Dec 1, 2020)

KingCoelacanth said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Based Zion Don. Either no sheckles for Israel or I get to sue this site for emotional distress so I can buy a new suit.


----------



## Jack Awful (Dec 2, 2020)

KingCoelacanth said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It sucks that almost all the responses shitting on him are generic quotes about dictatorships, unrelated accusations, calls for his arrest, or unfunny insults like calling him a baby, none directly addressing 230, and all clearly Tweeted at Trump as fast as possible in order to get as many likes as they could.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Dec 2, 2020)

KingCoelacanth said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This may be it! The good thing that Trump has done in his Presidency! This angry tweet will do more to preserve Section 230 than Trump's bosses would ever allow him to do intentionally.


----------



## KingCoelacanth (Dec 2, 2020)

Jack Awful said:


> It sucks that almost all the responses shitting on him are generic quotes about dictatorships, unrelated accusations, calls for his arrest, or unfunny insults like calling him a baby, none directly addressing 230, and all clearly Tweeted at Trump as fast as possible in order to get as many likes as they could.


This is what Trump's twitter has been like for 4 years.  People talk about twitter being filled with bots, and honestly all the generic replies and insults Trump gets every time he tweets anything has me convinced.


----------



## Violent Ken Apologist (Dec 3, 2020)

Honestly? I'm fine with the section being repealed. This site is cool but the amount of bullshit and life ruining that goes on online as a whole is absurd to begin with. It'd destroy the SJW movement, for one, and would just push places like this to socialize in Discord servers or something like that privately. I don't see why it'd be a net negative.


----------



## The Perplexing Ms. Escape (Dec 3, 2020)

Violent Ken Apologist said:


> Honestly? I'm fine with the section being repealed. This site is cool but the amount of bullshit and life ruining that goes on online as a whole is absurd to begin with. It'd destroy the SJW movement, for one, and would just push places like this to socialize in Discord servers or something like that privately. I don't see why it'd be a net negative.


I’m pretty sure discord could be held liable as well. Imagine some drama goes down in a discord (which always happens) and somebody gets so mad they try to sue.


----------



## Jack Awful (Dec 3, 2020)

The Perplexing Ms. Escape said:


> I’m pretty sure discord could be held liable as well. Imagine some drama goes down in a discord (which always happens) and somebody gets so mad they try to sue.


Repealing 230 wouldn't create a "free speech utopia" because Twitter wouldn't be forced to keep conservatives up, it would create an internet where Twitter and Facebook, the only social media sites that would be able to exist, are forced to overly moderate everything, or risk getting sued, and small "free speech alternatives" would just get shut down by the government for allowing right wing conspiracy theories and laughing at minorities.

Plus, Trump isn't going to win the voter fraud cases, a repeal of 230 would truly start in the Biden administration, and he's stated he also wants 230 gone to force social media sites to remove hate speech.

Double post, but Coconut Milk Mommy Tulsi Gabbard backs Trump in section 230's repeal.



			https://mobile.twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1334405463375417344


----------



## Cyber Bowling (Dec 3, 2020)

This might be overly optimistic, but I don't think it'll pass. This time, at least. Trying to hold an important defense bill hostage is a pretty tough sell. As much as people like to complain about Facebook and Twitter (and think that 230 will somehow destroy those sites or whatever) I think people's support for the military is much stronger. At least on the right. I suspect the left will oppose it just because it was something Trump proposed. Trump's inner circle has talked him out of making unpopular decisions at the last hour beforehand, and I could certainly see trying to veto a big defense bill as something they'd want to avoid.

In the future though, hard to tell. Null's post mentioned Biden being supportive of 230, which isn't great. But at the same time, I don't know if he/anyone on his potential administration is passionate enough to push it. And I imagine that, in the beginning at least, there will be a larger focus on Covid relief and other things, so hopefully 230 will be forgotten.


----------



## World's Best Dad (Dec 3, 2020)

What the fuck is Trump thinking? What happened to going _against_ what the Dems wanted? They've openly said they want it repealed to police speech _more. _This isn't even clown world anymore, this is Hell World.


----------



## Violent Ken Apologist (Dec 3, 2020)

The Perplexing Ms. Escape said:


> I’m pretty sure discord could be held liable as well. Imagine some drama goes down in a discord (which always happens) and somebody gets so mad they try to sue.


That's good. Then maybe clients like that can stop freaking logging everything and it can go back to being p2p or self erasing like AIM in the day did. The amount of drama that's shitstirred from allowing logs. It's accessibility has enabled so many creeps, too


----------



## Inflatable Julay (Dec 3, 2020)

Retard president aking the route of burning down the ship instead of letting it sink. He probably infected Metokur too.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Dec 3, 2020)

Inflatable Julay said:


> Retard president aking the route of burning down the ship instead of letting it sink. He probably infected Metokur too.


He infected a lot of people. Even /pol/ doesn't seem to care or know how any of this works.


----------



## Violent Ken Apologist (Dec 3, 2020)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> He infected a lot of people. Even /pol/ doesn't seem to care or know how any of this works.


We know but it's more accurate to say that a lot of us think many aspects of modern tech ruined society and we're kind of ok rewinding stuff to a century ago if it means getting rid of a lot of this degeneracy.


----------



## hundredpercent (Dec 3, 2020)

Respect the Erect said:


> You’ve made every correct point and then said it was wrong. I’ve never seen this level before. Are you Kevin Logan?


What did he mean by this?


----------



## downwardspiral (Dec 5, 2020)

will this affect internet archive?


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 5, 2020)

Violent Ken Apologist said:


> Honestly? I'm fine with the section being repealed. This site is cool but the amount of bullshit and life ruining that goes on online as a whole is absurd to begin with. It'd destroy the SJW movement, for one, and would just push places like this to socialize in Discord servers or something like that privately. I don't see why it'd be a net negative.


They called his bluff and passed the bill without the section 230 repeal.  Ironically this is actually true though.  The blue checkmarks would be fucking doomed once Twitter has to pony up the bills for the lolsuits that will be immediately filed against their continual torrent of character assassination.  We can just go straight after Twitter itself any time these motherfuckers rev up their hate mob again.  Since Twitter itself will have to cough up the money to defend these suits, those blue checkmarks either behave themselves or go the fuck away.


----------



## Violent Ken Apologist (Dec 5, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> They called his bluff and passed the bill without the section 230 repeal.  Ironically this is actually true though.  The blue checkmarks would be fucking doomed once Twitter has to pony up the bills for the lolsuits that will be immediately filed against their continual torrent of character assassination.  We can just go straight after Twitter itself any time these motherfuckers rev up their hate mob again.  Since Twitter itself will have to cough up the money to defend these suits, those blue checkmarks either behave themselves or go the fuck away.


I know. I've been stalked by a couple of older guys I have evidence abused me when I was a kid but one of them is rich so I'm not really going to push my luck and they've been able to make up anything without hard evidence in the interim. (powerlevelling, but don't address this, not going to talk about it at length anyway...) If this bill is passed, a lot of victims and reformed jerks will get their chance at society without being silenced. Many situations are complicated enough that you can't really call people out willy nilly without triggering a bunch of other things some people aren't brave enough to deal with anyway. Call me a huge pussy for not wanting to get my dick wet in this drama and you'd probably be right. I'm not alone either.

I do think Trump has the best interests of people in mind a lot of the time, which even I as a Trump fan admit is bizarre given his awkward insensitivity. He pulled out of 3rd world nations, is willing to put his own health at risk being president and having his legacy tarnished just so he can give the people what they want. The modern landscape politically is pozzed as hell. I mostly joke when I say it's jewish or a degenerate hellhole, but it is absolutely the latter if aught else. Every country has it's own culture and white culture WAS it's own distinct thing with it's own standards, they worked for us and basically every facet of it has been violated under modern premises. Respect for others is dead.

Oh btw, what do you mean? Called his bluff? Meaning it's over, it's not gonna get repealed? Yuck. Oh well.


----------



## Rupert Bear (Dec 8, 2020)

The US Senate has confirmed Trump's nominee for the FCC, Nathan Simington.




https://twitter.com/SenateCloakroom/status/1336432981376983043

https://www.engadget.com/senate-confirms-nathan-simington-fcc-221540315.html (archive)


> On Wednesday, the Senate today voted 49-46 to confirm Nathan Simington to a five-year term at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). *Simington is a proponent of repealing **Section 230*, a clause within the 1996 Telecommunications Act that protects internet companies from liability on account of their users. His main telecom experience is with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Commerce Department that serves as the president’s main advisor on telecommunications policy. In September, it came out that Simington had edited a petition the NTIA had sent to the FCC asking the agency to reinterpret Section 230. The petition came after President Trump signed his social media executive order this past May.
> President Trump nominated Simington after abruptly withdrawing the renomination of Mike O’Rielly. The move came after the Republican commissioner made a speech in which he said he opposed changes to Section 230. During his confirmation hearing, Simington acknowledged he had played a part in editing the NITA’s petition.
> 
> “Nathan Simington is the wrong person, and clearly the wrong person at the wrong time for the FCC,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) in the lead-up to today’s vote. “This nomination is dangerous because it threatens the integrity and political independence of the FCC.”
> As _Motherboard_ notes, the fear is that Republicans will use Simington’s confirmation to mire the agency in gridlock. By law, the party that wins the presidential election appoints the head of the agency. But if the Senate doesn’t hold confirmation hearings for President-elect Joe Biden’s pick in the new year, the FCC will be split two to two along party lines once current Chairman Ajit Pai steps down on January 20th. Then, when the term of Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel ends late next year, *there’s the additional possibility Republicans could enter 2022 with a two to one majority at the agency*. Whether things play out this way will depend on how the Georgia Senate runoff plays out in January. If Democrats win both available seats, they’ll be able to appoint the candidates they see fit.


----------



## WorthlessTrash (Dec 14, 2020)

Violent Ken Apologist said:


> I know. I've been stalked by a couple of older guys I have evidence abused me when I was a kid but one of them is rich so I'm not really going to push my luck and they've been able to make up anything without hard evidence in the interim. (powerlevelling, but don't address this, not going to talk about it at length anyway...) If this bill is passed, a lot of victims and reformed jerks will get their chance at society without being silenced. Many situations are complicated enough that you can't really call people out willy nilly without triggering a bunch of other things some people aren't brave enough to deal with anyway. Call me a huge pussy for not wanting to get my dick wet in this drama and you'd probably be right. I'm not alone either.
> 
> I do think Trump has the best interests of people in mind a lot of the time, which even I as a Trump fan admit is bizarre given his awkward insensitivity. He pulled out of 3rd world nations, is willing to put his own health at risk being president and having his legacy tarnished just so he can give the people what they want. The modern landscape politically is pozzed as hell. I mostly joke when I say it's jewish or a degenerate hellhole, but it is absolutely the latter if aught else. Every country has it's own culture and white culture WAS it's own distinct thing with it's own standards, they worked for us and basically every facet of it has been violated under modern premises. Respect for others is dead.
> 
> Oh btw, what do you mean? Called his bluff? Meaning it's over, it's not gonna get repealed? Yuck. Oh well.


Extremely late and gay, but you are an absolute faggot.


----------



## Terrifik (Dec 14, 2020)

Old but updated report


----------



## Had (Dec 27, 2020)

Trump had this to say about holding back the budget to get what he wanted out of 230 



source


----------



## James done did it (Dec 27, 2020)

> Congress has promised...


Winning bigly! to be fair though I'm sure in the next year or two the big three companies will go to congress and the Biden administration with some proposals for reform so they get to write their own regulation.


----------



## An Avenging Bird (Dec 28, 2020)

Had said:


> Trump had this to say about holding back the budget to get what he wanted out of 230
> View attachment 1813533
> source


Was it one of those pinky swear promises with fingers crossed behind the back?

I'm just done with seemingly everything being either in a coded message or somebody deliberately planting a psyop.
Nowadays you can't get anybody to say it the way it is.

I suppose the efforts to get rid of 230 is an elaborate "sting to expose the corrupt black hats" or whatever the fuck Q cultists put out.


----------



## Had (Dec 28, 2020)

An Avenging Bird said:


> Was it one of those pinky swear promises with fingers crossed behind the back?


Here is what I'm referencing






			https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1124447302544965634?lang=en


----------



## TamarYaelBatYah (Dec 28, 2020)

Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, the Senate of the USA will vote on whether or not to repeal Section 230 of the CDA. 

I personally wrote the President's Cabinet in Summer 2020 and asked them to look at my Supreme Court case (Scott v Moon) (the Petition was denied but my reasons were there). The President wants CDA Section 230 repealed. 

If the Senate repeals it, Kiwi Farms will be forced to shut down 

See here the President's commitment to repealing CDA Section 230



			https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-from-the-president-122720/
		


Fellow KF Victims, let's hope they repeal it!!


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Dec 28, 2020)

TamarYaelBatYah said:


> Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, the Senate of the USA will vote on whether or not to repeal Section 230 of the CDA.
> 
> I personally wrote the President's Cabinet in Summer 2020 and asked them to look at my Supreme Court case (Scott v Moon) (the Petition was denied but my reasons were there). The President wants CDA Section 230 repealed.
> 
> ...


Yeah no it's not getting repealed just yet.

Trump has no political capital left with the Republicans and the House Dems have already said they aren't going to do shit. The Bill has been signed but Trump is giving Congress a chance to amend the Bill based on his recommendations otherwise he will withhold the money to fund the Bill. However their is a time limit for how long he can do this before the Bill goes into effect. Essentially what he's doing is an attempt to save face by writing an angry letter to Congress and threatening sanctions but the swamp creatures in Congress could give two fucks right now and won't listen to him.

Either nothing is going to happen tomorrow or this is my "peace for our time" post before every thing goes to Hell.


----------



## Kheapathic (Dec 28, 2020)

TamarYaelBatYah said:


> Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, the Senate of the USA will vote on whether or not to repeal Section 230 of the CDA.
> 
> I personally wrote the President's Cabinet in Summer 2020 and asked them to look at my Supreme Court case (Scott v Moon) (the Petition was denied but my reasons were there). The President wants CDA Section 230 repealed.
> 
> ...


Yahoowa wants to talk to you in person. Don't keep him waiting.


----------



## Terrifik (Dec 29, 2020)

Here 230 bill  page 2-6 


Spoiler: garbled text transfer



12 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION 230.
13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 230 of the Communica14 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is repealed.
15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
16 (1) COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.—The Com17 munications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is
18 amended—
19 (A) in section 223(h) (47 U.S.C. 223(h)),
20 by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the fol21 lowing:
22 ‘‘(2) The term ‘interactive computer service’
23 means any information service, system, or access
24 software provider that provides or enables computer
25 access by multiple users to a computer server, in-
3
ERN20A91 N0D S.L.C.
1 cluding specifically a service or system that provides
2 access to the Internet and such systems operated or
3 services offered by libraries or educational institu4 tions.’’; and
5 (B) in section 231(b)(4) (47 U.S.C.
6 231(b)(4)), by striking ‘‘or section 230’’.
7 (2) TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946.—Section 45 of
8 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the registra9 tion and protection of trademarks used in commerce,
10 to carry out the provisions of certain international
11 conventions, and for other purposes’’, approved July
12 5, 1946 (commonly known as the ‘‘Trademark Act
13 of 1946’’) (15 U.S.C. 1127) is amended by striking
14 the definition relating to the term ‘‘Internet’’ and in15 serting the following:
16 ‘‘The term ‘Internet’ means the international com17 puter network of both Federal and non-Federal interoper18 able packet switched data networks.’’.
19 (3) TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.—Section
20 1401 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by
21 striking subsection (g).
22 (4) TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.—Part I of
23 title 18, United States Code, is amended—
24 (A) in section 2257(h)(2)(B)(v), by strik25 ing ‘‘, except that deletion of a particular com-
4
ERN20A91 N0D S.L.C.
1 munication or material made by another person
2 in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of
3 the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
4 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or al5 teration of the content of the communication’’;
6 and
7 (B) in section 2421A—
8 (i) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘(as
9 such term is defined in defined in section
10 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934
11 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)))’’ and inserting ‘‘(as
12 that term is defined in section 223 of the
13 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
14 223))’’; and
15 (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘(as
16 such term is defined in defined in section
17 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934
18 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)))’’ and inserting ‘‘(as
19 that term is defined in section 223 of the
20 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
21 223))’’.
22 (5) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.—Section
23 401(h)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Controlled Substances
24 Act (21 U.S.C. 841(h)(3)(A)(iii)(II)) is amended by
25 striking ‘‘, except that deletion of a particular com-
5
ERN20A91 N0D S.L.C.
1 munication or material made by another person in
2 a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Com3 munications Act of 1934 shall not constitute such
4 selection or alteration of the content of the commu5 nication’’.
6 (6) WEBB-KENYON ACT.—Section 3(b)(1) of
7 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act divesting intoxicating liq8 uors of their interstate character in certain cases’’,
9 approved March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the
10 ‘‘Webb-Kenyon Act’’) (27 U.S.C. 122b(b)(1)) is
11 amended by striking ‘‘(as defined in section 230(f)
12 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
13 230(f))’’ and inserting ‘‘(as defined in section 223 of
14 the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223))’’.
15 (7) TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE.—Section
16 4102 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—
17 (A) by striking subsection (c); and
18 (B) in subsection (e)—
19 (i) by striking ‘‘construed to’’ and all
20 that follows through ‘‘affect’’ and inserting
21 ‘‘construed to affect’’; and
22 (ii) by striking ‘‘defamation; or’’ and
23 all that follows and inserting ‘‘defama24 tion.’’.
6
ERN20A91 N0D S.L.C.
1 ( TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.—Section
2 5362(6) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
3 by striking ‘‘section 230(f) of the Communications
4 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))’’ and inserting ‘‘sec5 tion 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
6 U.S.C. 223)’’.
7 (9) NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND IN8 FORMATION ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION ACT.—
9 Section 157 of the National Telecommunications
10 and Information Administration Organization Act
11 (47 U.S.C. 941) is amended—
12 (A) by striking subsection (e); and
13 (B) by redesignating subsections (f)
14 through (j) as subsections (e) through (i), re15 spectively.


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Dec 29, 2020)

Terrifik said:


> Here 230 bill  page 2-6
> 
> 12 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION 230.
> 13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 230 of the Communica14 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is repealed.
> ...


The fuck all this legal gibberish mean? 

Call me optimistic but the fact McConnell attached the election investigation into this Bill is a good sign it's going to get shot down in the House.


----------



## Terrifik (Dec 29, 2020)

He just phoning in the poision pill  
lets find out tommorow 
look at the document your self i added it also.


----------



## I can't imagine (Dec 29, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> The fuck all this legal gibberish mean?
> 
> Call me optimistic but the fact McConnell attached the election investigation into this Bill is a good sign it's going to get shot down in the House.


The legal gibberish is basically adjusting existing laws that reference section 230 into now referencing things that would still exist after it was repealed.

But yeah, it's pretty obvious he's setting this up as a poison pill anyway, so barring some extraordinary circumstances, I don't think this shit is passing.


----------



## Null (Dec 29, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> The fuck all this legal gibberish mean?


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Dec 30, 2020)

Null said:


> View attachment 1817447


Here's the full bill.








						McConnell Covid-19 Relief Bill Repealing Section 230 | United States Code | Postal Voting
					

McConnell Covid-19 Relief Bill Repealing Section 230




					www.scribd.com
				



Really says something that.. despite the 'bothsidism' that GOP bootlickers are trying to push.. that the only thing preventing the internet being destroyed, something that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying to attach to a policy that 70-85% of Americans support, is the Democratic Party.


----------



## Strange Wilderness (Dec 30, 2020)

Null said:


> View attachment 1817447


>Sempai noticed me but he delivered the worst news possible

I'm sure there's a deep metaphor in their somewhere. 

So Bossman Null. what are your thoughts on this proposed Bill? Is this truly the end or is this just McConnell trying to save face by proposing an unwinnable Bill to save face?


----------



## Rotollo (Dec 30, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> despite the 'bothsidism' that GOP bootlickers are trying to push.. that the only thing preventing the internet being destroyed, something that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying to attach to a policy that 70-85% of Americans support, is the Democratic Party.


The only thing keeping (while also threatening) 230 from being fucked with is most people have no clue how the hell the internet works, especially in DC


----------



## JustSomeDong (Dec 30, 2020)

Rotollo said:


> The only thing keeping (while also threatening) 230 from being fucked with is most people have no clue how the hell the internet works, especially in DC


I genuinely long for the days when I laughed at shit like "series of tubes" because I was young and ignorant.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 30, 2020)

JustSomeDong said:


> I genuinely long for the days when I laughed at shit like "series of tubes" because I was young and ignorant.


Ironically that shit was more accurate than 90% of what Congressmen say about the Internet.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Dec 30, 2020)

Strange Wilderness said:


> >Sempai noticed me but he delivered the worst news possible
> 
> I'm sure there's a deep metaphor in their somewhere.
> 
> So Bossman Null. what are your thoughts on this proposed Bill? Is this truly the end or is this just McConnell trying to save face by proposing an unwinnable Bill to save face?


I'm leaning towards this being about the GA senate run.  McConnell is trying to put the Democrats on the horns of a dilemma.  Pass the bill?  "Trump and the GOP have done so many great things for the party, promises made, promises kept, go vote!"  Kill the bill?  "Democrats hate Americans and want them to starve to death, they're going to force everyone to take a measly $600 paycheck, go vote!"  I'm impressed by the low cunning on display even as I fervently hope he suffers from a massive heart attack.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Dec 30, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> Ironically that shit was more accurate than 90% of what Congressmen say about the Internet.


It's not that far off. It's a series of networks and very large cables. Not exactly tubes, but not too far off compared to the retard president and his enablers who wants to repeal section 230 all because they dared to fact check him


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 30, 2020)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> It's not that far off. It's a series of networks and very large cables. Not exactly tubes, but not too far off compared to the retard president and his enablers who wants to repeal section 230 all because they dared to fact check him


I still find it concerning that as more and more government communication occurs through these corporations, they increasingly get the power literally to interfere with the ability of the government to do its job.  For instance, there are now government agencies at state and federal levels where you have to communicate with them with something owned by Google, or a Facebook page, and in-person and other means of communication are being phased out or degraded.  There are jobs where they demand a Facebook page.  So if you get kicked off Google or Facebook or whatever, suddenly you have been cut off from the easiest way of utilizing government services, with absolutely no due process or right to appeal it.  And as infantile as President Poopy Pants has been, I seriously don't want corporate propaganda intervening between the President and the people.  Twitter has no right to a fucking opinion, any more than the phone company has the right to break into a phone call between me and my mom to tell me my mom is full of shit.


----------



## JustSomeDong (Dec 30, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> I still find it concerning that as more and more government communication occurs through these corporations, they increasingly get the power literally to interfere with the ability of the government to do its job.  For instance, there are now government agencies at state and federal levels where you have to communicate with them with something owned by Google, or a Facebook page, and in-person and other means of communication are being phased out or degraded.  There are jobs where they demand a Facebook page.  So if you get kicked off Google or Facebook or whatever, suddenly you have been cut off from the easiest way of utilizing government services, with absolutely no due process or right to appeal it.  And as infantile as President Poopy Pants has been, I seriously don't want corporate propaganda intervening between the President and the people.  Twitter has no right to a fucking opinion, any more than the phone company has the right to break into a phone call between me and my mom to tell me my mom is full of shit.


I'm gonna keep repeating it until it really sinks in.  Outsourcing is one of the last great American traditions.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Dec 30, 2020)

AnOminous said:


> I still find it concerning that as more and more government communication occurs through these corporations, they increasingly get the power literally to interfere with the ability of the government to do its job.  For instance, there are now government agencies at state and federal levels where you have to communicate with them with something owned by Google, or a Facebook page, and in-person and other means of communication are being phased out or degraded.  There are jobs where they demand a Facebook page.  So if you get kicked off Google or Facebook or whatever, suddenly you have been cut off from the easiest way of utilizing government services, with absolutely no due process or right to appeal it.  And as infantile as President Poopy Pants has been, I seriously don't want corporate propaganda intervening between the President and the people.  Twitter has no right to a fucking opinion, any more than the phone company has the right to break into a phone call between me and my mom to tell me my mom is full of shit.


I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Dec 31, 2020)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?


Yes.

The idea that a government organization that should be holding an evil megacorp like Google to account could be using their services is I N S A N E. Whatever one says about the EU, a lot of the support that EU bodies have provided for open sores software is in reaction to that sort of problem. Whether it's by directly employing people to create software, or providing grants to others to do so, critical infrastructure needs to be secured against hostile outside actors, and all of these 'FAANG' companies are at least as hostile towards the American people as any foreign government is.

Now.. it is true that the likes of Google, Facebook, etc aren't as hostile to the American structure of government as they are to the American people... but that only shows that they've captured the American structure of government, and that _corrections _need to be made.


----------



## Arm Pit Cream (Dec 31, 2020)

Kikestar of all people, came out with probably the most intelligent take I've seen on section 230 from a content creator




Your browser is not able to display this video.





			https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/1344022990061711362?s=19
		


On the other hand Nick Fuentes 


https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1344315188288368654?s=19 (https://archive.md/BQaqV)


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 31, 2020)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?


Actually, yes.  Or at least I think they should.  It would probably start out as an absolute disaster but eventually be functional within a few years.


----------



## HumanHive (Dec 31, 2020)

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/12/30/perdue-i-support-section-230-repeal-and-election-commission-along-with-2000-checks/
		


“What I’m called to do right now is hold the line and make sure we don’t lose my seat. Kelly Loeffler’s committed to do the same thing. So, we’re standing with the president on all the issues out there that we see in front of us, the 2,000 deal, the 230 — I’m sorry, the Section 230 issue, as well as the election commission that the president has called for.”

Pour one out for Nool this new years. He’ll need the liver damage.


----------



## ADL Pyramid of Hate (Dec 31, 2020)

Arm Pit Cream said:


> On the other hand Nick Fuentes
> View attachment 1819552
> https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1344315188288368654?s=19 (https://archive.md/BQaqV)


As if Fuentes would be shit without the internet.


----------



## A_throwaway_name62919 (Dec 31, 2020)

Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?


I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what they used to do and still do for some stuff. Yes it increases the budget needed as you have to pay for IT specialists who'll be spending a lot of time doing minor maintenence and waiting for proverbial fires to put out once things get set up. But it's a far better alternative than government services being interfered with by random corporations. There's very little reason for the president and other officials to have a twitter account over a lightweight blog fully operated by the government for example.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Dec 31, 2020)

HumanHive said:


> https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/12/30/perdue-i-support-section-230-repeal-and-election-commission-along-with-2000-checks/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's depressing to see politicians openly, and actively, advocating against our rights and freedom. I don't need to fear any supposed threats from overseas taking away my freedom. It's the idiots and assholes here at home who are threatening it every day.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jan 1, 2021)

AnOminous said:


> Actually, yes.  Or at least I think they should.  It would probably start out as an absolute disaster but eventually be functional within a few years.


Especially when Google has kinda work to earn money, when the gubmint has trillions of dollars guaranteed each year and all they have to do is throw your ass to prison when you try to be clever with taxes. Maybe people in government work weren't smart enough to work at Google and that's the problem?


----------



## likeacrackado (Jan 1, 2021)

Blow it up, better to go out with a bang than continue to decline. Its sad and pathetic that people draw self-worth from the social media internet and would rather see it become TV 2.0 than die and be replaced.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Jan 1, 2021)

likeacrackado said:


> Blow it up, better to go out with a bang than continue to decline. Its sad and pathetic that people draw self-worth from the social media internet and would rather see it become TV 2.0 than die and be replaced.


FFS if 230 dies the Internet *will be reduced to social media*.


----------



## thismanlies (Jan 1, 2021)

Arm Pit Cream said:


> Kikestar of all people, came out with probably the most intelligent take I've seen on section 230 from a content creator
> View attachment 1819545
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Nick Fuentes said:
			
		

> The Internet sucks now and it's never going to get better unless something is done to disrupt the consolidation of big tech power.



It's shit like this that reminds me why phrases like "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" exists.


----------



## AnOminous (Jan 1, 2021)

kuniqsX said:


> Maybe people in government work weren't smart enough to work at Google and that's the problem?


They were, though.  Lots of NSA and CIA guys ended up getting great gigs at Google for some reason.  Google glows like a motherfucker.


----------



## BlackDragoons (Jan 1, 2021)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> I'm impressed by the low cunning on display even as I fervently hope he suffers from a massive heart attack.


That implies he even has a heart in the first place. Mitch extends his life force with the hearts of orphans and the souls of unbaptised infants.


----------



## likeacrackado (Jan 1, 2021)

kuniqsX said:


> FFS if 230 dies the Internet *will be reduced to social media*.


Nope. This level of hysteria reminds me of net neutrality. Maybe this is more warranted, but I'm doubtful of the supposed sweeping immediate effects it could have after the last couple times something like this happened. Unlike net neutrality the incoming admin doesn't seem bent on completing the work of their predecessor, more likely that this government and big tech collaborate more directly and openly than ever before to censor and financially ruin their enemies. Thats more of an ominous future than the unlikely repeal of some section of a law whose implications hold less sway in reality than the wording appears.


----------



## AnOminous (Jan 1, 2021)

likeacrackado said:


> Nope. This level of hysteria reminds me of net neutrality. Maybe this is more warranted, but I'm doubtful of the supposed sweeping immediate effects it could have after the last couple times something like this happened.


Congress was concerned enough after the calamitous _Stratton Oakmont_ decision that they passed § 230 nearly immediately afterwards, correctly recognizing the rapid disaster which would result if they left it in place.  The results would not be immediate, except to sites like this where the owner has decided that's the tipping point where he says fuck it and gets out, but at first you'd have a trickle of litigation, and as the water got increasingly bloody it would soon turn into a feeding frenzy.  It would also wreak havoc in state and federal courts flooded with now profitable litigation on the issue.  You'd have a whole new cottage industry.  Come to think of it I'd probably get into that racket myself because fuck it.


likeacrackado said:


> Thats more of an ominous future than the unlikely repeal of some section of a law whose implications hold less sway in reality than the wording appears.


That's absolute nonsense, though.  In the 30 years since its passage, § 230's relatively modest language has transformed into near immunity for any third party to be held liable for the speech of any other person.  The guts of it are essentially this:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."  
Shepardize this and you'll see literally thousands of cases involving it, almost all of them throwing out lawsuits at the earliest preliminary stages, in state and federal courts all over the country.


----------



## Jones McCann (Jan 2, 2021)

It's funny the leftists shit their pants over "net neutrality" but when there's an actual threat to the free internet they cheer it on.


----------



## AnOminous (Jan 2, 2021)

Jones McCann said:


> It's funny the leftists shit their pants over "net neutrality" but when there's an actual threat to the free internet they cheer it on.


They're both threats.  Also they're idiots.  People saw net neutrality as something Obama supported, or claimed to support, and so immediately supported or opposed it based on that.  In reality neither Obama nor the morons on either side had any clue what they were talking about.


----------



## SpiralStars (Jan 5, 2021)

AnOminous said:


> They're both threats.  Also they're idiots.  People saw net neutrality as something Obama supported, or claimed to support, and so immediately supported or opposed it based on that.  In reality neither Obama nor the morons on either side had any clue what they were talking about.


Net Neutrality was originally about not having 3rd parties interfere with content you wanted to access.  After kicking around this ball, under Obama it just became a buzzword.   Net Neutrality became about ISP service, 'fast lanes' and pricing equity and nothing about access interference.   That version of Net Neutrality was about ingraining and justifying FCC regulatory control of the industry and not protecting the relationship between 2 parties on the internet.


----------



## Terrifik (Jan 7, 2021)

new rules annoused & stay down


----------



## cybertoaster (Jan 8, 2021)

After the shitfest at congress this shit is getting passed, we're fucked, the world is fucked since all countries will follow through with this

Goodbye internet


----------



## Terrifik (Feb 2, 2021)

Spoiler: what will happen



Social justice groups warn Biden against throwing out Section 230
‘Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights’

By Adi Robertson@thedextriarchy  Jan 27, 2021, 6:00am EST
Share this story
Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
SHARE
All sharing options
US-POLITICS-HEALTH-BIDEN
Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
A group of 75 activist groups and nonprofits have urged against sweeping changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, warning that it could silence marginalized communities while making online moderation harder.

“Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech,” the letter says. The law protects websites and apps from being sued over user-generated content — making it safer to operate social networks, comment sections, or hosting services. “Overly broad changes to Section 230 could disproportionately harm and silence marginalized people, whose voices have been historically ignored by mainstream press outlets.”

The letter is signed by a variety of groups supporting racial justice, sex workers’ rights, and free speech online — including the Wikimedia Foundation, Fight for the Future, and the Sex Workers Outreach Project. It’s addressed to Congress and the administration of President Joe Biden, both of which have shown an appetite for changing Section 230.


EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SECTION 230
All the threats to the internet’s most important legal protection — updated regularly.

To demonstrate the potential harm of major changes, the authors point to FOSTA-SESTA, a 2018 rule that removed legal protections for hosting prostitution-related content. “The impacts of this law were immediate and destructive, limiting the accounts of sex workers and making it more difficult to find and help those who were being trafficked online,” they write. They’re calling to pass a 2019 proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who called for a study of how the law impacted sex workers. At least one independent survey, performed by the signatory Hacking//Hustling, found a negative effect on many participants’ safety and financial stability.

The letter also notes that Section 230 lets companies remove objectionable posts without fear of lawsuits from disgruntled users. Amazon, for instance, invoked it to defend suspending the social network Parler over violent threats. “Congress should act to address the harms of Big Tech through meaningful legislative action on data privacy, civil rights and others fronts, and enforcement of existing antitrust laws. But uncareful efforts to poke holes in Section 230 could result in the exact opposite outcome,” write the authors.

The Trump administration pushed to rewrite Section 230, aiming to discourage social media sites from removing or fact-checking former President Donald Trump’s posts as well as other conservative content. Several Republican lawmakers backed similar changes. The incoming Biden administration also appears critical of Section 230, but on opposite grounds since Biden has claimed the law allows companies like Facebook to host false information. (The First Amendment protects many false statements.) Gina Raimondo, Biden’s nominee for Commerce Department secretary, expressed support yesterday for changing the law.


----------



## AnOminous (Feb 2, 2021)

Terrifik said:


> Social justice groups warn Biden against throwing out Section 230
> ‘Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights’


"Fuck both trump and biden"
Finally something we can agree on.


----------



## Terrifik (Feb 10, 2021)

Update

From The Ban & Deplatform of trump







			https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1359545242412793862
		











			https://mobile.twitter.com/SenMastriano/status/1359501914824732673
		


tangenly related but trying to not touch the private olatform Big tech while EU can ban it or tax it  .


----------



## cypocraphy (Feb 10, 2021)

Terrifik said:


> View attachment 1890627
> 
> 
> Spoiler: what will happen
> ...


I love the irony of social justice keeping kiwi farms alive.


----------



## X Prime (Feb 26, 2021)

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-section-230-big-tech-congress-pro-repeal-20210128-oxzxss4zqvbxniussz5yyt4g74-story.html
		




			https://archive.vn/gYpfc


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Mar 6, 2021)

The fuck is "democracy"?

Can you drown it with beer?


----------



## RussianMozart (Mar 7, 2021)

kuniqsX said:


> The fuck is "democracy"?
> 
> Can you drown it with beer?


It's where the elites pretend to rule on behalf of the people, and pretend to care about the will of the people, all while doing all they can to increase their own power and make a shit load of money for themselves. And this applies to pretty much all 'democratic' systems of governments nowadays.


----------



## n/a (Mar 24, 2021)

How do you guys feel about this? There's been a lot going on lately, and i think there's going to be a hearing tomorrow.


			https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/3/24/22348238/zuckerberg-dorsey-pichai-section-230-hearing-misinformation
		



			https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/facebooks-zuckerberg-proposes-raising-bar-for-section-230-11616610616
		

(Googling section 230 right now should take you to the rabbit hole. I don't want to paste too many links.)
There's pretty clear discourse on how zuckerberg's proposal would only benefit facebook and no one else.
There's also been a bunch of lawsuits going on with youtube's moderation algorithim, twitter with a child pornography case, and vimeo taking down gay conversion therapy videos all revolving around section 230 lately, and how repealing 230 could affect TOR users (at least according to this one article).








						How the Section 230 Uproar Misses the Point
					

One thing is certain: Big Tech’s era of growth going relatively unchecked by Washington is no more.  Just look at how President Biden recently named outspoken Big Tech critics Tim Wu and Lina Khan …




					variety.com


----------



## Null (Apr 5, 2021)

Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional. Still reading.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Apr 5, 2021)

Null said:


> Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional.


I would go as far to say the entire concept of prosecuting a publisher for the writings of an individual, digital or otherwise, is unconstitutional and also mega ‘tarded. (No, I don’t think the entire New York Times should be legally fucked over just because Mr/Mrs/Xrs Literally Who wrote about how the president totally shat themselves.)


----------



## janekop (Apr 5, 2021)

This isn't a ruling, this is the Supreme Court setting aside the federal appeals court ruling. That previous ruling had stated that Trump did violate the 1A by blocking people from his Twitter account. In response, the Supreme Court has vacated the ruling saying the case no longer has any relevance (because Trump is banned from Twitter, and because the nature of Twitter blocking *all* people from seeing Trump's tweets is a much greater concern that Trump blocking a *few* people from seeing his). Thomas's opinion doesn't call S230 unconstitutional, it calls it problematic - and even then, the only practical effects of this ruling are with regards to vacating Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute.


----------



## Null (Apr 5, 2021)

janekop said:


> This isn't a ruling, this is the Supreme Court setting aside the federal appeals court ruling. That previous ruling had stated that Trump did violate the 1A by blocking people from his Twitter account. In response, the Supreme Court has vacated the ruling saying the case no longer has any relevance (because Trump is banned from Twitter, and because the nature of Twitter blocking *all* people from seeing Trump's tweets is a much greater concern that Trump blocking a *few* people from seeing his). Thomas's opinion doesn't call S230 unconstitutional, it calls it problematic - and even then, the only practical effects of this ruling are with regards to vacating Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute.






Not a single thing in that declared 230 unconstitutional. I fucking HATE these right-wing grifting FAGGOTS.


----------



## Account (Apr 5, 2021)

Null said:


> Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional. Still reading.
> 
> View attachment 2060873View attachment 2060874View attachment 2060875View attachment 2060876View attachment 2060877View attachment 2060878View attachment 2060879View attachment 2060880View attachment 2060881View attachment 2060882View attachment 2060883View attachment 2060884


It doesn't. This is Thomas's opinion in the literal sense. There is nothing here stating that the section is unconstitutional.

Compare, for instance, the ruling in Roe v. Wade, specifically by CTRL+F'ing the word "unconstitutional".

EDIT:
Texas v. Johnson is even better example because it is much more direct:


> _Held:_  Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment.  Pp. 402-420.



The supreme court, as entity, does things, not the individual justices. When looking for what the court does, read the Syllabus of the decision and the opinion of the court (if it is a specific justices's opinion, it is labeled as so, otherwise it is the "per curiam" section). Usually you can just skip to the end of the opinion of the court to see what the court is actually going to do (i.e. "The decision of the court of appeals is reversed, it is so ordered") or something to that effect.


----------



## Rich Evans Apologist (Apr 5, 2021)

Yeah. It looks like it's primarily mentioned on page 10, with another reference on page 7. Thomas seems broadly to agree with the principle of not holding distributors of information as the publisher or speaker of said information, and if anything the tone seems to suggest that he's more concerned about the fact that companies can both enjoy this protection _and also_ curate information they dislike.

Page 8 in particular is an interesting read, as he expressly calls attention to Google de-indexing and de-listing content as well as its enormous market share, and muses on the applicability of trying to regulate big tech under "common carrier" pretenses, given that Google/Facebook/Amazon/Twitter/etc are far less decentralized than the concept of email or telephone. He sounds more amenable to clarifying 230 protections or adding stipulations to them along the lines of "right to exclude."


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 5, 2021)

Null said:


> Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional. Still reading.


No it fucking doesn't.  Wtf who is saying that and why?

That said it is definitely a shot across the bow to social media megacorporations with concentrated control of the speech of others.




SCOTUS is basically saying we're going to be looking up your assholes like a proctologist really goddamn soon.

Incidentally, this is my new favorite separate opinion by Thomas.  My favorite dissent is the one in _Gonzalez v. Raich_ which essentially argues _Wickard v. Filburn_ was decided wrongly and the federal government has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce in marijuana that has never crossed state lines or impacted interstate commerce in any other than an imaginary way.

Anyway, the arguments presented make perfect sense, and I'm not just saying that because he brings up the common carrier theory argument I've made myself, i.e. that certain platforms of a certain size, to enjoy 230 immunity, should be as unable to censor speech as the phone company.

This case makes very little in the way of binding law, though, because it's vacating a decision for being moot.  The Second Circuit, because it hates Druaumph, ruled that his Twitter account was a public forum, that is, essentially protected by the First Amendment.  Trump couldn't block people because it was, in a sense, run by the government.

Then Twitter decided it can just delete the President's account.  How much of a public forum is it if some tranny in his underwear and programmer socks can just zap it at any time?  The case is moot because Twitter's power to do that proves it isn't a government-run public forum.  Twitter can kick the government off.  It's a corporate forum, not a public forum.

But this raises some serious issues and these social media bitches and troons and SJWs should consider the fact that they're coming for you, motherfuckers.  Your reign of terror's days are numbered.


----------



## JohnDoe (Apr 5, 2021)

Thomas is laying out a lot of groundwork and signalling that some serious challenges to both 230 the technocratic overlords would be welcomed by the court.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 5, 2021)

JohnDoe said:


> Thomas is laying out a lot of groundwork and signalling that some serious challenges to both 230 the technocratic overlords would be welcomed by the court.


I disagree about 230 itself.  I think it is more about what social media corporations are allowed to do.  Section 230 was supposed to be a shield to protect ISPs from their moderation if they chose _not_ to delete content someone demanded be deleted, not a sword to claim to be more mighty than the President and able to attack people themselves without any recourse by the people they fuck over.

Imagine if the phone company could cancel your grandmother's phone account and say you weren't allowed to talk to her any more because she said nigger 10 years ago.  Or even yesterday.  Or even says it every other word.  Well, Facebook claims the right to do exactly that and we're at a point where people are more likely to fire off a Facebook message with a picture attached than call their granny on the phone.

Why the fuck does Facebook have that right?


----------



## Rich Evans Apologist (Apr 5, 2021)

AnOminous said:


> Imagine if the phone company could cancel your grandmother's phone account and say you weren't allowed to talk to her any more because she said nigger 10 years ago. Or even yesterday.


Thomas's allusion to email highlights this a little more clearly: you grandmother could always get another phone account, or even use someone else's phone in the interim. If your email was kerblammed, you could always just make another one. They're all fairly decentralized as a result.

But if your facebook account gets banned, you can't just make another one. That's ban evasion and the company wants to tie every account on the site to a real person, so for a lot of people it's one and done you're out of there. If I get denied Verizon service, I can still pick up a Sprint account and call anyone with a phone number; I can't make a profile on a competing social media account and still communicate with people on facebook. 

Similarly, if my site gets deindexed / manually blacklisted from Google search results, I can't exactly just make another identical site to get around this; the fact that my site might still show up on DDG doesn't really matter if it is now impossible for someone who uses primarily Google to ever really see it, whereas if I switch my company's phone service to something else, people aren't rendered completely unable to contact me.


----------



## Null (Apr 5, 2021)

That Posobiec tweet is peak misinformation and people are uncritically retweeting it and claiming victory and Trump vindication. Dead gay retard nigger country.


----------



## Dark Edea (Apr 5, 2021)

Null said:


> That Posobiec tweet is peak misinformation and people are uncritically retweeting it and claiming victory and Trump vindication. Dead gay retard nigger country.


Posobiec is the definition of a broken clock. Sometimes he says something interesting but most of the time it is partisan bullshit. The right wing lauds his "connections" to people in the intelligence community as some sort of high praise (even though they despise the intel community out the other side of their mouth) but he is usually spilling psy-op nonsense all over the table.


----------



## Jah Hates Kaffirs (Apr 5, 2021)

I just want to shitpost on the Kiwi forum without repercussions please government


----------



## Account (Apr 5, 2021)

Null said:


> That Posobiec tweet is peak misinformation and people are uncritically retweeting it and claiming victory and Trump vindication. Dead gay retard nigger country.


If people parroting stupid and blatantly false shit said by another person makes the US a "dead gay retard nigger country" then we've been that since the Spanish-American War.


----------



## Jah Hates Kaffirs (Apr 5, 2021)

Account said:


> we've been that since the Spanish-American War.


Yeah, you basically hit the nail on the head


----------



## Terrorist (Apr 5, 2021)

Don’t worry guys, Agent Prilosec is on the case. He’ll put a stop to 230 because he knows what a threat it is to Are Greatest Ally!


----------



## Caffeinated Idol (Apr 5, 2021)

Honestly feel pretty good Section 230 is going to be reworked. This site and it's owner could use a healthy dose of reality.


----------



## teriyakiburns (Apr 6, 2021)

Caffeinated Idol said:


> Honestly feel pretty good Section 230 is going to be reworked. This site and it's owner could use a healthy dose of reality.


stop being a ginger.


----------



## FunPosting101 (Apr 7, 2021)

Caffeinated Idol said:


> Honestly feel pretty good Section 230 is going to be reworked. This site and it's owner could use a healthy dose of reality.


lol It's not going to lead to much of anything happening to this place, rather Twitter and other normalfag social media is possibly going to get skullfucked by the government.


----------



## HumanHive (Apr 7, 2021)

Null said:


> That Posobiec tweet is peak misinformation and people are uncritically retweeting it and claiming victory and Trump vindication. Dead gay retard nigger country.


What do you expect from a global internet culture that only reads headlines?


----------



## Proud Ginga (Apr 7, 2021)

Account said:


> If people parroting stupid and blatantly false shit said by another person makes the US a "dead gay retard nigger country" then we've been that since the Spanish-American War.


A country full of nigger cattle. More like a world full of nigger cattle now.


teriyakiburns said:


> stop being a ginger.


What do you have against gingers?


----------



## teriyakiburns (Apr 7, 2021)

Proud Ginga said:


> What do you have against gingers?


My ongoing existence as a soulless freak of nature, that's what.


----------



## 7he47r0n (Apr 10, 2021)

HumanHive said:


> What do you expect from a global internet culture that only reads headlines?


I wouldn't even say they read the headlines so much as skim through them in their eternal hunt for more "cooming material".


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Apr 16, 2021)

FunPosting101 said:


> lol It's not going to lead to much of anything happening to this place, rather Twitter and other normalfag social media is possibly going to get skullfucked by the government.


The day 230 disappears is the day this site vanishes, too. Just a reminder.


----------



## FunPosting101 (Apr 16, 2021)

kuniqsX said:


> The day 230 disappears is the day this site vanishes, too. Just a reminder.


Who says it will disappear? They could just modify it enough to fuck over places like Twitter and Google by making them either drop the soft-censorship bullshit or lose their protection. Now, I'm not necessarily saying they would do it that way, but they could. Also, I thought concern over this was part of the reason our Dear Feeder had moved overseas and was looking into overseas hosting options?


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 16, 2021)

FunPosting101 said:


> Who says it will disappear?


Null.  I think he'd know.  Also 230 or not, no other country has anything remotely as good as the First Amendment on speech issues.  So it would almost have to be some fuckhole with a nonfunctioning government, and those also mostly have shitty Internet infrastructure, plus you're likely to get shook down by criminals or the government itself for bribes.

There's "bulletproof hosting" like outright criminal sites operate on, but again, there you're dealing literally with criminals and sharing network space with CP distributors and DDoS and other unsavory shit.  Plus their prices are extortionate, even if they don't decide actually to extort you even more themselves.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Apr 20, 2021)

Caffeinated Idol said:


> Honestly feel pretty good Section 230 is going to be reworked. This site and it's owner could use a healthy dose of reality.


Does it really matter in the long run?


----------



## RussianMozart (Apr 21, 2021)

Jewelsmakerguy said:


> Does it really matter in the long run?


I would like to think that it would merely  drive dissent underground. I'd also like to think that we will invent a cure for stupidity one day. And that I'll live long enough to travel to the stars...


----------



## Out Bob (Apr 22, 2021)

FunPosting101 said:


> Twitter and other normalfag social media is possibly going to get skullfucked by the government.


Good fuck Twitter


----------



## Null (Jul 8, 2021)

After doing some research I think that this bill is reasonable.








						Text - S.4828 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop Suppressing Speech Act of 2020
					

Text for S.4828 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop Suppressing Speech Act of 2020



					www.congress.gov
				




It reduces the protections that all service providers receive from censoring content. If damages arise from censorship, companies can be sued for it.


Edit: These bills are reasonable.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s Stop Suppressing Speech Act of 2020 and House counterpart H.R.7808
Sen. Wicker’s Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act


----------



## Frapton66 (Jul 8, 2021)




----------



## Catgirls are Love (Jul 9, 2021)

Frapton66 said:


> View attachment 2329173


Those aren't lawsuits; they're fundraisers.


----------



## heraclius33 (Jul 9, 2021)

Honestly this lawsuit is a distraction from state level efforts to ban social media censorship. Texas's Senate passed a bill that bans social media censorship awhile ago. It was going to have a vote in the house but the Democrats in the TX state house delayed it through some form of filibustering. Luckily it will likely appear in the ongoing special legislative session that the Governor convened, as one of the key agenda items is on social media censorship. Also, unlike the FL bill, this bill applies to everyone, not just candidates or independent journalists or publications or blogs.


----------



## Frapton66 (Jul 9, 2021)




----------



## Rakdos92 (Jul 10, 2021)

Frapton66 said:


> View attachment 2332028View attachment 2332030View attachment 2332031


Yeah, totally no bias involved, eh?


----------



## The High Prophet of Truth (Jul 10, 2021)




----------



## Likeigod (Jul 11, 2021)

Anti censorship bills will never work

Politicians 1) have no idea what they are doing
And            2) are cucks

Any law will leave the option to censor/ban/delete "hate speech"

There is no actual set definition of what consists of hate speech therefore media outlets will continue as they are now


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 12, 2021)

Likeigod said:


> Anti censorship bills will never work
> 
> Politicians 1) have no idea what they are doing
> And            2) are cucks
> ...


The only anti-censorship bill that ever worked was and is Section 230, and it was actually intended as a pro-censorship bill as part of the Communications Decency Act.


----------



## Jack Awful (Jul 20, 2021)

https://archive.md/Arr5W
Uh oh


----------



## X Prime (Jul 23, 2021)

Located by @CatParty:









						Democratic bill would suspend Section 230 protections when social networks boost anti-vax conspiracies – TechCrunch
					

Two Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would strip away the liability shield that social media platforms hold dear when those companies boost anti-vaccine conspiracies and other kinds of health misinformation. The Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-M…




					techcrunch.com


----------



## Never Scored (Jul 23, 2021)

X Prime said:


> Located by @CatParty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If this gets passed, it's only a matter of time before it get modified to include things like race, religon and climate change.


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 23, 2021)

Never Scored said:


> If this gets passed, it's only a matter of time before it get modified to include things like race, religon and climate change.


Yeah whatever, good luck in the Senate, bitches.


----------



## Account (Jul 23, 2021)

X Prime said:


> Located by @CatParty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bill is S. 2448 for posterity. There is a PDF in the article and the important bit is


> A provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service during a covered period if the provider promotes that health misinformation through an algorithm used by the provider (or similar software functionality), except that this subparagraph shall not apply if that promotion occurs through a neutral mechanism, such as through the use of chronological functionality.


This carveout is only operative during a health emergency. "Algorithm" is not defined and "neutral mechanism" is way too vague. Is sorting by number of posts on a forum "neutral"? Is the highlight system "neutral"?

"Health misinformation" is also vague. Does it mean going against generally accepted medical advice? Does it mean lying about medical topics? If you have something that goes against the consensus but you have evidence to back up your claim, is that also medical misinformation? Is a misinterpretation or controversial stance medical misinformation?

It's patently unconstitutional and will never pass the senate but I'm astounded how we elect 500 lawyers every other year to write laws and they cant do it correctly.


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 26, 2021)

Account said:


> It's patently unconstitutional and will never pass the senate but I'm astounded how we elect 500 lawyers every other year to write laws and they cant do it correctly.


They're doing it wrong on purpose.  That's why they put this shit in the Constitution.  Politicians can't be trusted with it.


----------



## MuuMuu Bunnylips (Jul 28, 2021)

AnOminous said:


> Yeah whatever, good luck in the Senate, bitches.


----------



## ScatmansWorld (Dec 2, 2021)

An Open Conversation with Jack
					

Jack is one of 40,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook. He recently sat down to talk about why Facebook supports updating regulations...




					www.youtube.com
				







Your browser is not able to display this video.




If Facebook/Meta is pushing for section 230 reform, I get the feeling this is going to be the worst case of regulatory capture the US has ever seen.


----------



## Large (Dec 2, 2021)

ScatmansWorld said:


> An Open Conversation with Jack
> 
> 
> Jack is one of 40,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook. He recently sat down to talk about why Facebook supports updating regulations...
> ...


Cool necro, negro.


----------



## Bonedome (Dec 2, 2021)

Large said:


> Cool necro, negro.


You can't necro a happening if more happenings happen, my friend.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 2, 2021)

ScatmansWorld said:


> An Open Conversation with Jack
> 
> 
> Jack is one of 40,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook. He recently sat down to talk about why Facebook supports updating regulations...
> ...





Oomf.


----------



## Jack Awful (Dec 2, 2021)

The easy argument to why this is a bad idea is that Facebook wants to do it.

That's not even a joke, people hate Facebook more than the other social media giants for some reason.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 2, 2021)

I continue to monitor this thread.


----------

