Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
good news everyone Nulls Christmas wish is happening
Feb. 21 and 22,
Feb. 21 and 22,
In November 2015, 12 shooters coordinated a series of strikes around Paris, killing 130 people. ISIS subsequently claimed responsibility for the attacks on YouTube. On New Year’s Day 2017, another ISIS-trained gunman fired into a crowd at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul. That attack killed 39 and injured 69 others. Relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez and Nawras Alassaf, victims in the Paris and Istanbul attacks, respectively, filed separate suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to hold social media companies liable for their deaths under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Plaintiffs in both suits argued that social media platforms were communications infrastructure, which ISIS uses to publish terroristic content, radicalize and recruit new operatives, inspire stochastic terrorism, and plan and execute coordinated attacks. In both Gonzalez v. Google and Taamneh v. Twitter, plaintiffs argued, platforms materially supported a designated FTO by allowing ISIS to use their products. Similarly, plaintiffs emphasized that platforms generate and share revenue through the direct monetization of ISIS content and placement of targeted ads.
In Gonzalez, Google argued that these claims were barred by Section 230 and moved to dismiss the suit. Section 230 (c)(1), the operative provision, states that “[n]o 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.” Case law has construed statutory language to immunize providers of interactive computer services (such as websites) against liability arising from content created and posted by third parties. Gonzalez argued Section 230 immunity did not apply because:
Section 230 does not apply outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and all the relevant conduct in Gonzalez occurred elsewhere.
JASTA revoked Section 230 immunity from claims brought under the ATA when it amended that statute to include liability for aiding and abetting FTOs in 2016.
Section 230(e)(1), which operates as an exception to immunity for federal criminal prosecutions, also exempts civil suits brought under criminal enforcement statutes (such as the ATA).
YouTube’s placement of targeted ads and algorithmic recommendation of videos transforms YouTube from an interactive computer service (ICS) to an information content provider (ICP), stripping the platform’s Section 230 immunity. As defined by Section 230(f)(3), an ICP is any “person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet.”
In Taamneh, platforms moved to dismiss based on insufficiency of proximate causation and, secondarily, on the argument that these claims were barred under Section 230. The trial court never reached Section 230 analysis but held that a “direct relationship” was required to plausibly establish causation for the Taamneh direct liability claims. The court also held that platforms did not have the requisite intent to be held secondarily liable for their users under JASTA for aiding and abetting or for conspiracy.
In both cases, the district court weighed whether the revenue-sharing claims exposed platforms to secondary liability (under JASTA) but found these to be insufficiently pleaded. The entire Taamneh complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the Taamneh plaintiffs appealed promptly. Gonzalez’s revenue-sharing claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the remainder were dismissed with prejudice.
March 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit consolidated and reviewed Gonzalez and Taamneh appeals with a third case, Clayborn v. Twitter (which concerned similar claims regarding the 2015 shooting attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California). When considering each of these appeals, arising from motions to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit accepts any factual allegations as true for the purposes of their analysis. Wherever these allegations (taken as true) constitute a plausible claim, it would be improper to uphold their dismissal.
In Gonzalez, Google argued that these claims were barred by Section 230 and moved to dismiss the suit. Section 230 (c)(1), the operative provision, states that “[n]o 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.” Case law has construed statutory language to immunize providers of interactive computer services (such as websites) against liability arising from content created and posted by third parties. Gonzalez argued Section 230 immunity did not apply because:
Section 230 does not apply outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and all the relevant conduct in Gonzalez occurred elsewhere.
JASTA revoked Section 230 immunity from claims brought under the ATA when it amended that statute to include liability for aiding and abetting FTOs in 2016.
Section 230(e)(1), which operates as an exception to immunity for federal criminal prosecutions, also exempts civil suits brought under criminal enforcement statutes (such as the ATA).
YouTube’s placement of targeted ads and algorithmic recommendation of videos transforms YouTube from an interactive computer service (ICS) to an information content provider (ICP), stripping the platform’s Section 230 immunity. As defined by Section 230(f)(3), an ICP is any “person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet.”
In Taamneh, platforms moved to dismiss based on insufficiency of proximate causation and, secondarily, on the argument that these claims were barred under Section 230. The trial court never reached Section 230 analysis but held that a “direct relationship” was required to plausibly establish causation for the Taamneh direct liability claims. The court also held that platforms did not have the requisite intent to be held secondarily liable for their users under JASTA for aiding and abetting or for conspiracy.
In both cases, the district court weighed whether the revenue-sharing claims exposed platforms to secondary liability (under JASTA) but found these to be insufficiently pleaded. The entire Taamneh complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the Taamneh plaintiffs appealed promptly. Gonzalez’s revenue-sharing claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the remainder were dismissed with prejudice.
March 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit consolidated and reviewed Gonzalez and Taamneh appeals with a third case, Clayborn v. Twitter (which concerned similar claims regarding the 2015 shooting attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California). When considering each of these appeals, arising from motions to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit accepts any factual allegations as true for the purposes of their analysis. Wherever these allegations (taken as true) constitute a plausible claim, it would be improper to uphold their dismissal.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
True however the local government officials will confiscate the unauthorized goods for the safety of others. And reward anyone volunteering information
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
No fucking way. No way this actually happens.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
Listen, I just want another SCOTUS ruling where Clarence and Alito all but calls the liberal justices niggers and make them seethe once more. Especially Jumanji Brown.
anti SJW
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2016
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
Regarding porn, society as a whole has gotten much less puritanical rather than more so. I blame it on Larry Flynt for opening Pandora's box (although I'm sure there's a porn floating around out there with that title).
Until he won the right to show gaping pussy, much of porn, like Playboy, was "art" rather than sexual fetish. Tasteful, not deviant. That was the top of the slippery slope and we're getting close to the bottom.
Do I think there are limits on what's acceptable and what's not? Certainly, we all do. And you can write an Encyclodepia Britannica on the subject and I'll still say anything involving sex with children (or animals) will always be deviant and unacceptable to me and I'd like to think society as a whole.
Anything between consenting adults? Meh who cares. It's not like somebody's pinning my eyeballs to make me watch it and I generally don't.
Until he won the right to show gaping pussy, much of porn, like Playboy, was "art" rather than sexual fetish. Tasteful, not deviant. That was the top of the slippery slope and we're getting close to the bottom.
Do I think there are limits on what's acceptable and what's not? Certainly, we all do. And you can write an Encyclodepia Britannica on the subject and I'll still say anything involving sex with children (or animals) will always be deviant and unacceptable to me and I'd like to think society as a whole.
Anything between consenting adults? Meh who cares. It's not like somebody's pinning my eyeballs to make me watch it and I generally don't.
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
This is where we are at with Joepedo:
The original photo
The photoshopped WH guys photo
The original photo
The photoshopped WH guys photo
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I mean does it matter? He's going to win reelection in 2024 with a stunning and unprecedented 100 million votes regardless of who his opponent is because American elections are basically pre determined events now.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
The National Weather Service has issued a Severe Shitstorm Watch.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
Sure makes it seem that they’re terrified of him running and possibly winning again. The DC/media conclusion of the postmortem report of the 2022 midterms was “ITS ALL BLUMPHFS FAULT HES ELECTORAL POISON.”
If that’s really the case, wouldn’t the democrats want him on the campaign trail as much as possible to kill the GOP for 2024? I know there are differing opinions as to whether or not DeSantis is viable, but I think they’d want to avoid having the cleaner, more articulate Ron talking about real issues while the media pays all of it’s attention to this Trump circus (which they’d totally try to use to tarnish the entire GOP). edit: Especially amidst the resulting motivating anger that prosecuting Trump would surely bring about. Voters dearly hate hypocrisy, and I doubt a plurality would be able to brush off the fact that the Biden DOJ is running this kind of interference on its main political opponent, considering the subject of Trump’s first impeachment inquiry.
One would like to believe that Garland would consider the societal ramifications of going after a former president/leader of a political movement/2024 candidate in this climate, but this is clown world and he was the ringleader behind the ill-advised MAL raid. Perhaps he didn’t want to indict Trump because he wanted the tribunal to wrap up and refer charges, making it seem “legitimate” (though one would think they’d have indicted him just before his 2024 announcement if they had a case).
Either way, if no charges result, it exposes this whole debacle as one giant TDS tantrum.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
I thought that even DC insider, Bill Barr, said there was no evidence of an insurrection. But they'll ignore that just like they ignore the current VP for inciting the George Floyd Riots, which by the definition is also an insurrection.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Funny you mention that. They think Barr is just a Trump shill, so it matters not a hill of shit to them.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Can't wait for all the Amerisharts to shit their pants and screech about how indicating Stumpf is totally crossing a line and how the next Civil War will totally start any day now.
verissimus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
I think we've officially reached the Soviet era level censorship/propaganda comrades.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
I wish those people would realize there won't be a Civil War or Revolution until big business supports it. And at that point do we even want it?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2019
The current political and economic climate is like a wet, but rapidly drying patch of wild grass. Nobody can really tell you when the field will be dry enough for a fire, nor which spark will actually set the conflagration off, but there's still a gigantic fucking retard in the field tossing lit matches around like it isn't a problem and if said gargantuan imbecile continues with throwing little bits of burning material around then a wild fire is inevitable.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Now that the 2022 world cup has ended, the next one is going to be hosted in 2026 in America, Canada and Mexico.
How the fuck is FIFA and the Democrats and RINOs going to convince tourists to come to America given the high rates of Soros DAs just letting off niggers to keep on nigging in the urban shitholes of America.
And the police is going to be less than willing to enforce THE LAW if another chimpout happens during that event.
Though expect to be a lot of fear mongering over the 2A when they start the preparations for the event.
How the fuck is FIFA and the Democrats and RINOs going to convince tourists to come to America given the high rates of Soros DAs just letting off niggers to keep on nigging in the urban shitholes of America.
And the police is going to be less than willing to enforce THE LAW if another chimpout happens during that event.
Though expect to be a lot of fear mongering over the 2A when they start the preparations for the event.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
Aren't there a lot of Spanish people that watch football? Don't they also hate niggers?
They always fight with each other anyways, I'm sure that problem will be solved on its own.
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
I wonder if the GOPe campaign donors are saying "yeah we want illegals and amnesty but we can't make it this obvious" and telling Roberts to do something, otherwise Trump has a big talking point for the next two years.
Blacklight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Again it's fascinating to watch as a place like this, designed to allow its users to say all sorts of awful words, faggot, nigger, cunt, kike, etc etc, get all in a tizzy over porn.
Child porn is and always will be fucked up along with beastuality since the act requires performances from people/animals that can't rightfully consent to the act.
Yet the idea of allowing porn between two consenting adults to be banned is also fucked in the head. It's the rights version of "I don't like this and it shouldn't be allowed for anyone else."
Child porn is and always will be fucked up along with beastuality since the act requires performances from people/animals that can't rightfully consent to the act.
Yet the idea of allowing porn between two consenting adults to be banned is also fucked in the head. It's the rights version of "I don't like this and it shouldn't be allowed for anyone else."
- Status