depends on what you're looking for, he and his friends brag about sending minors homemade HRT which is already awful enough, as for the one where they allegedly exposed minors to sexual content (the catboy shit) server got purged when he started getting shit, there's probably stuff to find if you look more deeply into the one that brags the most about the HRT thing, bobposting, but there's already a thread on proving grounds for him
Twitter makes you create an account just to search or scroll through tweets easily, so it's not surprising that a huge amount of people make an account just to browse some celebrity's page once or twice a year and nothing more.
After Tumblr died porn addicts and trannies flocked into Twitter, recently after DeviantArt updated to eclipse a lot of artists moved to Twitter or Instagram, Pixiv slowly gets invaded by sjws so there's some rise of eastern people on Twitter as well, who are not really fond of canelling libtards.
Never say you're afraid.
Troon is used all the time on 4chan, has been in their lexicon for 3+ years at this point. It seems to have creeped into the vocabulary of spergy discord kids too. If you're perpetually online and non-sympathetic towards trannies chances are you've heard the term and at least lurk places where it sees use.
Yeah, first time I heard the term was back during Chris Chan Idea Guy bullshit, back before I started regularly browsing KF, so it has indeed been out there awhile and has spread pretty far.
Alright, so all of this made me actually look back into Section 230 law. It came up as an important part of class back in uni, when the professor brought it up like this:No it fucking does not.
Section 230 isn’t the problem, Payment Networks are – Mad at the Internet
madattheinternet.com
Where the Sidewalk Ends: The Death of the Internet – Mad at the Internet
>Tranny lawyer (retard) says that Section 230 protects the site from stalking / harassment / cyberbullying / whatever charges.
Wrong. Section 230 is like 3 paragraphs long so fucking read it. This stupid fag didn't read the law he claims to be an expert in.
47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(2) is titled CIVIL LIABILITY. There is nothing in Section 230 about CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Harassment and stalking is a crime. So if the site was facilitating this, if I was facilitating this, I already have no expectation of immunity from this statute because it offers none whatsoever. (e)(1) explicitly states "No effect on criminal law.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of ... any other Federal criminal statute."
What Section 230 does is protect websites (like mine, like Twitter, like Facebook) from direct civil liability from both what is said on the platform and what is removed from the platform. If someone defames you on Twitter, you must sue THEM and not Twitter. This is critical to the continued existence of open platforms. If Facebook was personally liable for every post on Facebook, you can bet your sweet ass that the amount of shit getting deleted from Facebook would be astronomical. Only the safest, least offensive things imaginable could survive with that sort of liability.
On deleting, the 'sword' to the 'sword and shield' of Section 230 is the ability to delete things without liability. If someone makes money from being on Facebook and they are banned, they cannot sue Facebook for the resulting damages (i.e. loss of sales revenue from no advertising).
What I can do is personally commit civil offenses. If I said something defamatory and I was sued, then I still am liable for what I say. That's it.
There is no qualifying factors for this. If it is an 'interactive computer service', it is protected.
(the final gave us several test examples more or less based on this definition)
Yes, you were lied to and your new interpretation is correct. I am only liable for my edits. The site becomes liable for certain things but that's a more technical distinction and the bottom line is someone (me) has to make an original claim.
At least there is a 41% Chance whoever made this killed himself already.
"Trannydom needs martyrs bigot, as long as it's not me"
I don't know if this is just a hilarious misunderstanding of female anatomy or if some Thai doctor actually redirected keffals urethrae to their asshole.
We already have pretty good data on the first half of that. It is generally accepted now that young girls who regularly participate on social media platforms have huge rates of body dysmorphia and dissatisfaction. This leads to real world consequences, like increased rates of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.
I remember when this happened and knew someone told that dumbass that if r/the_Donald was smart they could have sued them and taken down reddit or at least gotten some shekels
