- Joined
- Aug 14, 2019
Of course Null would be the person to use werewolf as a verb.
Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet
- Thread starter Distant Stare
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
As soon at that tweet got edited there will have been people whispering in trumps ear that Section 230 is the way to properly fuck with Jack. Yeah Trump is doing it for particularly retarded reasons but repeal of 230 has a lot of support.
At the moment no one on the left is openly supporting it because it's Trump, but do a google search for articles/tweet from before a couple of months ago.
Here's Biden saying he wants 230 gone.
archive.li
Here's a NYT article by of all people fucking Sacha Baron Cohen.
archive.li
Here's Beto O' Rourke back when he was relevant.
archive.li
What do groups like the American Trial Lawyers think about 230? a group that are one of the democratic party's largest financial backers... What about the ADL and SPLC, who have a shit ton of lawyers that will be circling like vultures.
You won't hear any of this because nobody on the left wants to support trump... give it time though.
At the moment no one on the left is openly supporting it because it's Trump, but do a google search for articles/tweet from before a couple of months ago.
Here's Biden saying he wants 230 gone.
Sacha Baron Cohen: The ‘Silicon Six’ spread propaganda. It’s time to …
archived 25 Nov 2019 14:18:40 UTC
Here's a NYT article by of all people fucking Sacha Baron Cohen.
Sacha Baron Cohen: The ‘Silicon Six’ spread propaganda. It’s time to …
archived 25 Nov 2019 14:18:40 UTC
Here's Beto O' Rourke back when he was relevant.
Opinion | Joe Biden Says Age Is Just a Number - The New York Times
archived 28 May 2020 17:15:30 UTC
What do groups like the American Trial Lawyers think about 230? a group that are one of the democratic party's largest financial backers... What about the ADL and SPLC, who have a shit ton of lawyers that will be circling like vultures.
You won't hear any of this because nobody on the left wants to support trump... give it time though.
Skin and Bones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
Trump should back down on this fast and apologize. Threatening to remove important freedoms just because some people on the internet pissed you off is an awful idea. You shouldn't say it without intention to follow it up, as you're treating it like taking a kid's privileges after they act up.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
Who are you talking to? Most people are going "yeah this is bad but if it's anything like every other time it's bluster and nothing will happen".
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2019
Law is gay, that's why.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2018
Thats what kills me though, people are effectivly using it's protections by posting here of all places, yet they can't conceptually grasp WHY it's benifiting them to have 230 around.
The problem with about 50% of the posts in this thread is that of a Godwin's law problem. Trump was mentioned, so people can't fucking look at the issue for what it is and they just distill the whole thing about him or the fact that Null mentioned him. Many of the posters in this thread have Trump living in their head rent fucking free they they can't actually take the step beyond and rationalize what 230 actually means for them.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
The law is incredibly simple.
If you run a network or a website, and someone uses it to do something bad, you are not liable for it (with exception). Websites that editorialize (newspapers) are still liable. This is why Hulk Hogan can sue Buzzfeed, but Vordrak can't sue the Kiwi Farms.
What Trump is threatening to do to hurt Twitter is repeal this law, so if someone uses Twitter to do something bad, Twitter is liable for it. 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.
Notice how what he's threatening to do doesn't actually solve the problem. It just makes these platforms so liable for what they publish that the only solution is to censor even more. Any defamation complaint would mean tweets and videos would have to go down. If someone posts something here and I get a complaint it's defamatory, I have to delete it or accept liability.
Currently, the process is: Person goes to court, gets court order to remove content, content is removed. The impetus is on the person to go to court.
Contrast that with the DMCA. Section 230 explicitly does not cover IP. So when I get a DMCA complaint, and I tell them to fuck off, I actually am personally accepting responsibility for that content. Every time I do this I evaluate the use of the work and decide if it's fair or not. This is me sticking my neck out on behalf of users.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
I can't do that for statements. Every time someone claims a post is defamation, I have to evaluate the facts and determine if I trust those claims so much that I believe I can personally represent it in court on behalf of the person making the post.
To anyone who would say "you're in Serbia, why do you care?" my answer is: I am physically in Serbia, but my possessions are not. Verisign, the company that leases all .NET domains, is American. My bank accounts are American (and thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, unregulated banks like Swiss banks do not allow Americans to have accounts with them). My hardware is in the US. My datacenter is in the US. My LLCs are American. A civil judgement against me means they can take all of that, including the domain, Few other countries have the strong and broad protections for both speech and services as the US does currently.
Repealing Section 230 does not just spite Twitter. It emboldens Twitter to censor as hard as possible and jeopardizes any small forum without financial resources. I cannot become an outlaw for the forum. I cannot throw away my American citizenship for the forum. I've already done enough, and with the way Trump supporters are cheering this on, I don't even want to even bother.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
No and no.
I don't make money off of the Internet nor do I use it as my primary vehicle of social interactions. This basically only affects people that host sites, and I don't intend to do that. So yeah, it doesn't fucking affect me. Unless the Orange Nigger actually does even more anti-2A shit than the bumpstock fuckery or otherwise directly impede upon my rights, I actually don't care. Even if I am using the law implicitly by posting here, I can still express my 1A rights in the real world really.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
I just want to say a good chunk of this thread is filled with complete fucking retàrds.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
As with net neutrality, this could affect them as well. But because Trump is doing it, it's okay.
I knew Trump was doing this for his own sake to protect his fragile ego. While they eat it up and encourage censorship because it's against him.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
I think they are talking about @Zero Day Defence
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
I certainly hope the repeal part is simply a bluff, and that the EO is enough to scare Twitter and friends.
Though it's not like any other politician is better.
Though it's not like any other politician is better.
- Joined
- May 1, 2018
Tl;dr: If you spergs dont calm down in putting down the knee on your necks
Simple as that, unless soy valley decide to double down nothing much will came out of this
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Shhh, you can't be so direct. They're probably still waiting for the nukes to fly from when we bombed the Syrian airfield and made Sulemani a shishkebab
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
nu/cow/ with the big brain takes. It definitely won't affect their website either
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
You would miss the internet as it was before it turned into a neurotic kindergarden, and that's assuming you don't even care or have any ties with it in the first place.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
trump owns the libs by trying to make it technically impossible for any non-megacorp approved opinions to exist on any other internet platform
at least shooting yourself in the foot is quick, this is like holding a chainsaw to your foot while trying to remain smug looking through the noise and blood splatter
at least shooting yourself in the foot is quick, this is like holding a chainsaw to your foot while trying to remain smug looking through the noise and blood splatter
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
He's negotiating in a very brute manner.
Google / Facebook / Twitter have demonstrated ability to control public opinion. It's a very serious threat and something Americans have no interest in.
This tweet says he's going to take them out of business. He's a businessman, he's not going to nuke $2.2 T of the US GDP. But he certainly can get their attention.
The issue of censorship is now at the top of Big Tech's stack. We're going to see how they respond, they're either going to back down or go for broke.
There's nothing petty about that. It's about risk.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
Becoming an international outlaw for Jessica Yaniv and Moviebob threads would rule.