Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[(not) y2k compliant]

I feel like this is a good time to remind people that Joe Biden also wants to repeal Section 230 because he's pissed at Facebook.

No matter who wins this year's US presidential election, we are about to be saddled with a technologically illiterate leader who wants to take away one of the most fundamental building blocks of the internet because he's mad at social media. People have every reason to be worried.

This is what a lot of people seem to be missing, is that at this rate its looking to be an inevitability, and the push for ending 230 was not started during Trump either, its been ongoing for almost a decade during Obama's administration even.
Ending 230 is a bipartisan agreement, the only reason it hasn't happened already is because they don't want to look like they agree on it.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Like the lockdown, this is another example of what happens when someone actually implements one of my damn fool ideas. Everything goes to shit.

Gustav Schuchardt. Wrong about everything, all of the time.

 

[Captain Hastings Official]

Well, if this is the end, I'd just like to let you all know that truly, you're all a bunch of white niggers.

 

[GaryGrey]

If they repeal Section 230 of the CDA I will close this site the same day and none of you will hear from me again.

What is being repealed here? The EO is narrowing the scope of 230 subparagraph (c)(2)(A), saying that removing or banning for "objectionable content" is no longer a catch defense. Broken down by section here is how I interpret the EO.

Section 1: Big tech is a big biased bully and don't even have the courtesy to hide it.
Section 2: The meat of this EO. States what section 230(c) of the CDA is and how its current interpretation has gone beyond intended use. Focusing on subparagraph (c)(2) (A) and where "good faith" end and deceptive or pretextual actions begin. Now redefining and clarifying "good faith" to be:

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Now the vague wording is "adequate notice". Still seems to say good faith removals are fine but they must come with a reasoned explanation. This will just change the nature of the bans rather than stop them. The NTIA part is worrying but that depends on what power they have and where jurisdictional lines end.
Section 3: To see if tech companies were dumb enough to censor paid ads. Nothing like a good old audit to ruin someone's day.
Section 4: Reminder that some of these big platforms have risen to public square status and my be subject to the first amendment.
Section 5: A big old kiss the ring. To remind tech companies who is on top the government is going to waste a huge amount of their time on compliance. Not just federal but each state so compliance x51. Driving the point home harder is an order to show how the sausage is made. In terms of data gathering and its usage. Which once the AG makes a write up this be public by a FoIA request if not public by default.

Unless something is missing or misunderstood nothing is being repealed. The EO is clarifying "good faith" vs "deceptive and or pretextual". Having new regulations drawn up by NTIA to better clarify said change. Auditing federal money spent on social media ads, and forcing a ton of time to be wasted on making sure large social media platforms are compliant with all state and federal regulations.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

That's a really extreme stretch. This sort of thing is usually held to be particular to the function the company is doing on behalf of the government, and doesn't inherit to the company's other functions. For example, when the government holds an event at a convention space, the convention space is required to allow for 1st Amendment rights to be exercised (to some degree; many sarcastic comments were made about "freedom of speech zones"), but that doesn't imply that the convention space has to hold any event it's requested to. Additionally, if someone had a prior ban from that convention space for an unrelated reason, they would probably still be prohibited from that event, though using a company as a proxy to mask the government's decisions is disallowed.

The last time the federal government tried to regulate speech in favor of "fairness", it wasn't great then. I don't think many people are wishing for the Fairness Doctrine to come back. You can try to make an argument that strict moderation is little different from publishing, but it would be very hard to divide them cleanly.

As mentioned by @Absolutego, Packingham vs. North Carolina.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

 

[Superman93]

View attachment 1330577

Using GIF's like it's twitter is seriously making me cringe.

 

[Harvey Danger]

No, it's over. This has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the American population can only think in terms of what the Govenrment can do for them. Everything must be handled by a Government apparatus and when Section 230 is inevitably destroyed (if not now, soon) it will be replaced by a subcommittee within the FCC, because look at how good the FCC was for television and film.

Welcome to the crypto-anarcho doomer side, fren.

 

[GethN7]

After examining this as calmly as I can, I have this take.

Trump did not post anything worse than the usual "white men must die" garbage the average Twitter asshole posts. Hell, the whole "Trump needs stabbed with an air syringe" tweet is far worse. All he posted was basically "I will ensure law and order prevails even if I have to authorize shoot to kill as necessary to restore order".

Twitter's reaction to that is hypocritical and very stupid given how they know he's personally pissed at them.

As to all that has followed, if this goes and burns down an important bulwark of the internet, okay, reason to panic seems justified. At the same time, it's a bit early to say how this going to play out, so I prefer to wait a bit to see how badly I need to panic before I actually panic.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Am I on reddit? Fuck off with this "destroying the internet" overreaction you fucking faggots.

I don't care about rep, I just don't understand these chicken littles. I remember this same kind of reaction about net neutrality that was going to destroy the internet.

230 protects site owners from consequences for activities committed by a 3rd party on their website. So, for example, if I uploaded child porn to the Farms, Josh would not be held liable. Without Section 230, if I uploaded child porn here, Josh would be liable. Without the protections provided by that law:

1. Forums like this would shut down, since site owners wouldn't want to risk some troll uploading illegal content and reporting them to the government.
2. Sites like YouTube and PornHub would die quickly, since they rely on user-generated content to survive.
3. Sites like The Pirate Bay, 4shared, and other file-sharing websites would die for the same reason.
4. Any site that didn't die a quick death would quickly become a tyrannical regime rivaling Oceania- all to protect the site owners from liability.
5. Email, video conference, Discord, and similar services would die or be run like a police state.

In short, user generated content- the lifeblood of the internet as we know it- exists only because of Section 230. Without that protection, the only websites will be corporate websites or draconian forums.

 

[The Pink Panther]

The libertarian mindset everyone, "fuck you I have mine"

Good.

 

[Absolutego]

What is being repealed here? The EO is narrowing the scope of 230 subparagraph (c)(2)(A), saying that removing or banning for "objectionable content" is no longer a catch defense. Broken down by section here is how I interpret the EO.

Section 1: Big tech is a big biased bully and don't even have the courtesy to hide it.
Section 2: The meat of this EO. States what section 230(c) of the CDA is and how its current interpretation has gone beyond intended use. Focusing on subparagraph (c)(2) (A) and where "good faith" end and deceptive or pretextual actions begin. Now redefining and clarifying "good faith" to be:

Now the vague wording is "adequate notice". Still seems to say good faith removals are fine but they must come with a reasoned explanation. This will just change the nature of the bans rather than stop them. The NTIA part is worrying but that depends on what power they have and where jurisdictional lines end.
Section 3: To see if tech companies were dumb enough to censor paid ads. Nothing like a good old audit to ruin someone's day.
Section 4: Reminder that some of these big platforms have risen to public square status and my be subject to the first amendment.
Section 5: A big old kiss the ring. To remind tech companies who is on top the government is going to waste a huge amount of their time on compliance. Not just federal but each state so compliance x51. Driving the point home harder is an order to show how the sausage is made. In terms of data gathering and its usage. Which once the AG makes a write up this be public by a FoIA request if not public by default.

Unless something is missing or misunderstood nothing is being repealed. The EO is clarifying "good faith" vs "deceptive and or pretextual". Having new regulations drawn up by NTIA to better clarify said change. Auditing federal money spent on social media ads, and forcing a ton of time to be wasted on making sure large social media platforms are compliant with all state and federal regulations.

It's readily apparent despite the order being publicly available to read, and a copy of it leaking well before he actually signed it, just about no one ITT has read the order, instead of panicking solely based off what they read in tweets and Dear Leader sobbing into his cornflakes all morning.

 

[Aib Ld]

Why does every tech illiterate politican want to take something off of the internet law at least once? Would taking them off also apply to them too?

 

[Pukebucket]

You people can still contact the White House to make your voice heard. I just did so myself.

Shit dude, did you sign a Change.org petition too?

 

[The Last Stand]

Shit dude, did you sign a Change.org petition too?

That's his American right. Voice your concerns to the government.

 

[Cheese-Loving Citizen]

In the small sliver of a chance that Trump is going forward with the appeal and the Farms goes full janny mode or gets nuked entirely, I just wanna say that you are all nìggers, faggots and incredibly obese and I would not have intercourse with any of you.

 

[Moguro Fukuzou]

I'm curious if this whole "REPEL 230" from Trump has any backing from his people or if this is just something he said in a moment of rage against twitter because it's being mean to him. If it's the second and his people are in as much a state of confusion as the public then I can't see any of them having a restful weekend. There's already stuff in the works that his guys have worked on around the issue of social media with the EO but now Trump saying stupid shit on Twitter is probably throwing them into a state of confusion.

I almost feel bad for his guys if they have no idea what's happening, probably many frantic phone calls happening atm if that's the case. Even if this is just a show by Trump it's still going to cause panic for the public as can be seen in this thread, many unneeded emails and phone calls all because Trump just won't stop using twitter.

 

[Nobunaga]

Shit dude, did you sign a Change.org petition too?

How dare people use one of the few methods with a proven track record to contact WH officials!

 

[(not) y2k compliant]

Why does every tech illiterate politican want to take something off of the internet law at least once? Would taking them off also apply to them too?

Yes, but these are rich, powerful entities, so even if the law changes not to favor them, they're basically above it anyways, so....

 

[crocodilian]

230 protects site owners from consequences for activities committed by a 3rd party on their website. So, for example, if I uploaded child porn to the Farms, Josh would not be held liable. Without Section 230, if I uploaded child porn here, Josh would be liable. Without the protections provided by that law:

1. Forums like this would shut down, since site owners wouldn't want to risk some troll uploading illegal content and reporting them to the government.
2. Sites like YouTube and PornHub would die quickly, since they rely on user-generated content to survive.
3. Sites like The Pirate Bay, 4shared, and other file-sharing websites would die for the same reason.
4. Any site that didn't die a quick death would quickly become a tyrannical regime rivaling Oceania- all to protect the site owners from liability.
5. Email, video conference, Discord, and similar services would die or be run like a police state.

In short, user generated content- the lifeblood of the internet as we know it- exists only because of Section 230. Without that protection, the only websites will be corporate websites or draconian forums.

Your rundown makes sense. What (I assume) he doesn't understand is why people are taking the "repeal Section 230" tweet literally when, as explained many times in this thread, doing that would benefit nobody and take a ridiculous amount of time, effort and money. And, again, the president has a blatant habit of making enormous demands of his opposition, only to dial back in the end and do something less extreme. That's the part I don't understand, at least.

Maybe I should change my username to "psittacine" because I feel like I'm repeating myself.

 

[MrJokerRager]

View attachment 1330238















Come on Magapedes, we gotta get this man re-elected for the memes, MIGA 2020

Let's get real. His base will give him a pass on this, too. Just like everything else. Gotta fall in line for November.

Now that is what I call a funny and great anti-trump commercial but given how neoliberals and progressives are, too much pussified to use it. Because the message it conveys is too simple for the unwashed plebs to understand, no its must be complex bullshit.