Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

GethN7 said:
Twitter is seriously crossing the Rubicon doing that. Up until now, they could largely argue plausible deniability on the more stealthy shit they tried to pull, but this is flagrantly stepping over the line between carrier and publisher. Worse, he's a HEAD OF STATE, distorting his tweets is certainly a federal crime since it causes harm to Trump's ability to communicate clearly what he intends to say to the public.
Click to expand...
This seriously makes me wonder if Twatter has a legal department. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine losing Safe Harbor protections would mean them being on the hook for every libelous statement that gets tweeted.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Vault Boy, heathercho and 14 others
It's HK-47 said:
View attachment 1324055

That's interesting. This exchange hasn't been disclosed until now, and contextually this took place on the same day that Trump joked about Russia finding Hillary's emails. Four days after this exchange, Crossfire Hurricane was opened up, but the thing is that Comey--under oath-- denied that Crossfire ever had anything to do with investigating Trump at the onset, and instead just sort of "lead there" as it was initially just supposed to be an investigation into Russia, but this exchange directly contradicts his testimony.

More interestingly, this snippet doesn't appear anywhere in the OIG report (Pg. 428 of PDF), not even in a redacted form. An investigation should be opened pertaining to specific crimes, not specific people, especially when the person in question is someone that the investigator personally does not like.
Click to expand...
We all knew it would lead back here. What concerns me is that the Inspector General's report didn't even mention it... Did someone hide these documents from them, and they were only found later?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Lizard Pope, Ghostse and 3 others
thismanlies said:
This seriously makes me wonder if Twatter has a legal department. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine losing Safe Harbor protections would mean them being on the hook for every libelous statement that gets tweeted.
Click to expand...
Short answer: This wouldn't result in Twitter losing Section 230 Safe Harbor protections. Courts have previously held that minor edits that only comment on a posting without changing the substance of the message authored by another, does not constitute “development” within the meaning of § 230(f)(3). And even if the edits did constitute development under 230, it's likely that Twitter would only be liable for content that was "developed" by Twitter, not for everything libelous posted on their website.

And speaking of libelous content:

Qriist said:
Guys! Trump M-U-R-D-E-R-E-D a staff assistant!
lol that rascal
View attachment 1323626View attachment 1323627View attachment 1323630
View attachment 1323649

Good lord these people are unhinged.
Click to expand...

If you're going to do something this fucking stupid, at least name your fake corpse something along the lines of "Ima Wiener" so you can argue that it's clearly a joke and that everyone would understand it is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, the fall of man, Lizard Pope and 3 others
lolwatagain said:
Short answer: This wouldn't result in Twitter losing Section 230 Safe Harbor protections. Courts have previously held that minor edits that only comment on a posting without changing the substance of the message authored by another, does not constitute “development” within the meaning of § 230(f)(3). And even if the edits did constitute development under 230, it's likely that Twitter would only be liable for content that was "developed" by Twitter, not for everything libelous posted on their website.
Click to expand...

That's a bit iffy. While not editing his comments, it's still linking to known enemies with a clear bias calling him a liar and Twitter is sponsoring it by executive fiat. That's still editorializing.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Vault Boy, the fall of man, Lizard Pope and 3 others
Godzilla@1989 said:
Apologies for double posting, but we got double re-tard alert
View attachment 1323954
Click to expand...
These people would nuke DC if it meant killing trump. Jesus Fucking Christ on the Cross For Fuck's Sake.

The Dems should be the eternal example of "Cut off Your Nose to Spite Your Face" or "Shooting Yourself in the Foot".
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Vault Boy, Lizard Pope and 9 others
neverendingmidi said:
The signs of it being a shitshow were appearing long before the movie was released. Remember when the actresses went to some children's hospital before they'd even released a teaser trailer?

View attachment 1322750

It's one thing to do this after the movie has come out and kids are either excited or meh about it, but going when nobody has any idea of who the fuck you are is just bizarre. If RDJ had wandered into a kid's hospital dressed like Tony Stark/Ironman in 2006, the kids probably would've been equally confused.
Click to expand...

Fucking spawn campers.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Lizard Pope, Too Many Catgirls and 2 others
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Vault Boy, FuckedUp and 8 others
GethN7 said:
That's a bit iffy. While not editing his comments, it's still linking to known enemies with a clear bias calling him a liar and Twitter is sponsoring it by executive fiat. That's still editorializing.
Click to expand...
It's editorializing, but editorializing by itself doesn't revoke 230 protection:

Obviously, Cremers did not create Smith's e-mail. Smith composed the e-mail entirely on his own. Nor do Cremers's minor alterations of Smith's e-mail prior to its posting or his choice to publish the e-mail (while rejecting other e-mails for inclusion in the listserv) rise to the level of "development." As we have seen, a central purpose of the Act was to protect from liability service providers and users who take some affirmative steps to edit the material posted. Also, the exclusion of "publisher" liability necessarily precludes liability for exercising the usual prerogative of publishers to choose among proffered material and to edit the material published while retaining its basic form and message.

The "development of information" therefore means something more substantial than merely editing portions of an e-mail and selecting material for publication. Because Cremers did no more than select and make minor alterations to Smith's e-mail, Cremers cannot be considered the content provider of Smith's e-mail for purposes of § 230.

Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003)

Development requires material substantive contribution to the information that is ultimately published. Deleting profanity, selectively deleting or allowing to remain certain postings, and commenting favorably or unfavorably on some postings, without changing the substance of the message authored by another, does not constitute “development” within the meaning of § 230(f)(3).

Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475, 865 A.2d 711, 727-728 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005)

However, editorial content that's considered to be wrongful and created by the provider generally isn't given protection under 230 for those comments.

Defendants argue that they did not create or develop any of the allegedly wrongful content, although they provided other content on the Rip-off Report website, because [*1149] the allegedly wrongful content appears in Rip-off Reports authored by users accessing the website. This argument ignores Plaintiffs allegations that wrongful content appears on the Rip-off Report website in editorial comments created by Defendants and titles to Rip-off Reports, which Defendants allegedly provide. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "produce original content contained in the Rip-off Reports." Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "solicit individuals to submit reports with the promise that individuals may ultimately be compensated for their reports." These allegations arguably could support a finding that Defendants are "responsible . . . for the creation or development of information" provided by individuals submitting Rip-off Reports in response to Defendants' solicitation. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Taking Plaintiffs allegations as true, In re Broderbund, 294 F.3d at 1203, Defendants are not entitled to immunity under the CDA at this stage of the case.

Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1148-49 (D. Ariz. 2005)

However, what Twitter did is closer to Batzel and Donato, rather than Hy Cite.

Edit: What Twitter did is fucking stupid though, because people are going to look at it and ask "Who died and made some random jackass at Twitter the arbiter of truth in regards to Election Fraud?" We won't know the true extent unless we actually fucking audit the voter rolls.

One time out of curiosity I tired searching my own information on Google in order to see what information was available on public record websites. I also tried searching fake information I previously gave to register for shit, when I knew it would end up on spam mailing lists. A couple of websites had my fake information listed on their website, but they claimed that they obtained the information from voter rolls. The websites themselves were pretty fucking sketchy, so I'm fairly certain that the website itself used spam mailing lists to fill it's database, but the other possibility is that someone managed to fucking register to vote as Hugh Asslover, with an address of 12345 Fakeandgay St.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Lizard Pope, witthel and 2 others
Isn't that fake murder story based off of that one Dem senator or whatever who murdered his pregnant staffer?

DNA_JACKED said:
It does. If it didnt, then California would have left the union in 2016. But it didnt. Democrats wont follow through because they know they dont have the votes int he various state legislatures and congress to pull this move off, and trying to do it without votes would lead to civil war.
Click to expand...

You can't just come in here and calm down the doomers. Is it not enough to stop the coronavirus doomers? If you keep it up, they'll turn into voomers.

Jigglyjogglers said:
Out of fairness the only reason you'd rather see RDJ than some washed up SNL actresses is because of Iron Man's success. Before Iron Man resurrected his career he was pretty much a nobody on par with them who'd crashed and burned. (And he seems to be steadily wandering back into that area now that he's bid adieu to the role.) You could say the kids would love it if he went in the suit, but... pretty sure most of the suits just outright didn't exist, he would have shown up wearing like part of a chestpiece and a mocap suit.

I mean no one's wrong to say the stunt was stupid and forced and annoying and the kids clearly got nothing from it, just also saying RDJ was a "Who the fuck is that?" nobody too before Iron Man.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Guy Ritchie Sherlock movie come out before Iron Man? But then again, it's unlikely kids would have seen it, so the point still works.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: witthel, spiritofamermaid and TaimuRadiu
Allanon said:
Didn't the Guy Ritchie Sherlock movie come out before Iron Man? But then again, it's unlikely kids would have seen it, so the point still works.
Click to expand...
Some fat fuck in a knitted Spoderman costume doing a Krusty the Klown act would have been more relevant to that kid than those stupid bitches.
 
Allanon said:
Isn't that fake murder story based off of that one Dem senator or whatever who murdered his pregnant staffer?



You can't just come in here and calm down the doomers. Is it not enough to stop the coronavirus doomers? If you keep it up, they'll turn into voomers.



Didn't the Guy Ritchie Sherlock movie come out before Iron Man? But then again, it's unlikely kids would have seen it, so the point still works.
Click to expand...
Nope. It was 2009, Ironman was 2008.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, Pope Julius IV, Witthel and 2 others
The only form of voting and mail I support is to be mailed a unique token to eligible voters. You show up, present your token, paper ballot, and done deal. No need for national ID, actually works really well, and would fix so many issues.

I do have to say that I legit worry about the next 10-20 years. The platforms the DNC is pushing is just... like if they passed half of what they wanted I could legit see a civil war break out. I know in my small town if a federal officer showed up to confiscate guns because of a phone call that person might die, but so would a few agents.

Once something like that happens (incidents have happened but the large scale federal version) I’d expect to see armed rebellion. Like if they kill the guy running the general store or some shit. Out in the woods people set off pipe bombs all the time, make moon shine, and some can hit quarters on targets at 300+feet.

Then I wonder if the spirit of resistance to tyrant assholes has been beaten out of the American consciousness and we would just enter the hell we deserve.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, Pope Julius IV, Vault Boy and 11 others
Shaka Brah said:
If he loses the Left will be emboldened to clamp down hard on whites. It's going to be seen as a just divine punishment for daring to not be on the right side of history.
Click to expand...
If Biden wins and there is enough Democrat strength in congress, I suspect KF to be given the 8ch treatment.
SBG said:
It was a decidedly mediocre movie, but it did get a lot more hate and mockery than it normally would have due to the politics of the time. Mostly because people behind the movie treated it as a political statement to do a female Ghostbusters movie, tying it into feminism (even as Paul Feig is doing here) and Hillary/Trump.

It has to feel deranged to the people behind the movie that it got so much backlash since they weren't used to people on the right wanting to counter this bullshit and mock them mercilessly over it. Which is why you get people bringing up gamergate occasionally even when talking about Fembusters, since that was another major instance of people countering and mocking the mainstream media narrative, which still baffles people on the left.

Also have the whole issue Todd Phillips pointed out


It's harder to do comedies these days because of woke culture and Fembusters was a giant example of this woke friendly comedy at work, which fell flat on its face. It has to be confusing as hell for people as blind as Feig.
Click to expand...
The only good thing about that Ghostbusters movie that it led to that asshat Yiannopolis getting kicked off Twatter.

A little aside about mail in ballots...

Just like MConnel's warning about the SC that quickly bit the Democrats in the ass, I don't think they see the unintended consequences here. In the long term, I could see voter fraud being perpetrated to fuck them as much as help them. How many poor fuckers renting some shithole will have their living situation threatened if they don't give their landlord their ballots, or some college kids renting a floor in a house from some guy who simply takes their ballots and votes for Republicans when they are at their troonology class or serving grande lattes somewhere? Or Shaniqua holding down some shitty waitressing job with three kids getting pressured by her boss to turn over her ballot (hinted at only, of course) or she's unemployed and fucked?

It would work both ways, with D or R in a position to abuse it, but the real losers would be the voting poor and the vulnerable.

It's less likely from Republican voters abusing it, I'd guess, since there is generally a bit more respect for the rule of law, but push this a few years when the perception is that the entire thing is fixed, and I doubt it would stay that way.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, Pope Julius IV, Vault Boy and 12 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back