Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[Null]

Something to consider, might make your weekend a little better.

Netflix makes up about 70% of the world's internet traffic. 8k video is coming, which is like 20x the size of a 4k stream. And demand is increasing, there's more providers, video chat usage has increased 5x since January, etc.

Arguably, everyone on the Internet benefitted from the FCC decision to can Net Neutrality. It meant providers could throttle traffic and gave them leverage to get Netflix to limit stream sizes during lockdowns. Without that, it probably would have been impossible for a sudden surge of teleworkers to do anything productive, markets would have crashed a lot harder than they did.

Throttling was a very unpopular idea. When Net Neutrality was being debated, the FCC was subject to bomb threats, constant accusations from activists, sustained social media campaigns claiming every website was about to become pay-per-view, lots of claims that throttling was racist / white supremacist / sexist, etc. It had me very upset at the time, trying to sort through what people were saying to get to the facts. Had petitions on all my sites encouraging people to fight it. Watched the livestream when it was passed and felt very, very bad for a while.

In retrospect, throttling was a very good idea. Policy recognized the reality of the Internet and where it's going, it gave providers a way to align with that path. Always wondered who benefitted from that sustained level of activism, the actions didn't seem to be connected to the facts. Time has proved it was political theater, looking back I wish I spent my time more productively.

There are people who want you to be really upset about the EO and Section 230. If this doesn't go their way, they stand to lose Trillions and a substantial amount of influence. They represent economic interests which are very much empowered via the panopticonic nature of today's worldwide Internet surveillance infrastructure. Mastercard, for example, would not be what it is without data-driven insights into the behavior of massive numbers of consumers worldwide. And they would never be able to get that data without cooperation from Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Say what you want about the President, he's not part of that club. The people around him are not stupid and have demonstrated quite a bit of foresight in their actions. Moreover, they are not going to be bullied by a Big Tech cartel. Previous actions from the administration have worked to the benefit of regular Internet users and certainly did not screw smaller sites. Kiwi Farms loads just fine for me even though everyone one of my neighbors is watching Netflix.

You get 24 hours a day and can spend them however you choose. If you want to be worried about the financial interests of a bunch of kleptocrats in Silicon Valley, go ahead. But you might want to think about who benefits from your outrage. It's not Null.

This is a fucking retarded post. There are extant barriers in bandwidth that nothing the FCC is doing helps with. Removing Net Neutrality was a mistake and you haven't felt the full extent of it yet.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

God dammit Donald. You could've just revoked the Section 230 privileges for these big sites. But instead you fuck up and revoke 230 all together. I'm not voting in the 2020 Election anymore. This country is fucked.

He hasn't revoked anything yet. Repealing Section 230 will require the approval of Congress, and given what the ramifications of such a move would be, it's not clear that they'd be willing to go ahead with it.

In reality, this executive order has about as much teeth as the average Trump supporter.

 

[Null]

I respect the idea why this could be an issue but it sounds a lot like when net neutrality was going to kill everything and then the onlines kept going exactly as before.

Net Neutrality being gone was, is, and will continue to be a big deal. You have not seen the full extent of the repercussions.

 

[Banditotron]

Let's allllllll take a step back and think practically. Let's say that come next week, 230 is no more, yeah? Just a hypothetical. I'm the kind of guy who believes that even the most impossible problem has a solution, so what's the solution to this problem? There must exist some bullshit nonsense loophole that might allow a website such as this to exist, right? Like if, say, it was hidden inside something else? I don't know. I'm computer illiterate. I'd really rather not live under increasingly draconian law, but here we are.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Net Neutrality being gone was, is, and will continue to be a big deal. You have not seen the full extent of the repercussions.

I'm starting to think that revoking Net Neutrality actually opened the door for state intervention on the internet, ironically enough. It's the end of the exiting internet. Now it's going to get bland and boring.

 

[Not Really Here]

Something to consider, might make your weekend a little better.

Netflix makes up about 70% of the world's internet traffic.

How did it go from 12.6% in 2019 to "70%" in one year?

Netflix falls to second place in global internet traffic share as other streaming services grow

Netflix has dropped to second place in terms of global internet traffic, behind the combined total of web-based streaming services, according to the latest 'Global Internet Phenomena Report' from Sandvine.

www.sandvine.com

 

[Christ Cried]

Free speech is a tool abused by the bikes to undermine us. Anti-white speech should be banned.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

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.

Any suggestion to what site we could migrate to if shit hits the fan? Maybe some free speech haven could survive somewhere on the darkweb?

 

[XYZpdq]

There's always usenet

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Net Neutrality being gone was, is, and will continue to be a big deal. You have not seen the full extent of the repercussions.

How bad do you think things are going to get?

 

[Ivan Shatov]

This is a fucking retarded post. There are extant barriers in bandwidth that nothing the FCC is doing helps with. Removing Net Neutrality was a mistake and you haven't felt the full extent of it yet.

Respectfully, I'd be fucked right now if my carrier was not throttling streaming services to allow web browsing to happen. Use of streaming services is up about 400% where I live.

You might be right to say throttling disguises costs that will be realized in the 5 - 10 year period, but it's arguable about who will bear them. Increased competition in the streaming market means there's going to be competition between providers to provide the lowest cost services. Even if ISPs starting tacking on a streaming premium there's a good chance it gets eaten by streaming services themselves, not consumers.

But that's speculative. You don't know the future any more than I do. No company wants to be the reason people can't watch their 8k movies at 400fps on their cell phones in a parking garage elevator.

My point was that no one wrecked the Internet despite the previous doomsday warnings. The people who would like you to believe this is the end of the world are not your friends.

Strange how panic makes us forget what's important.

 

[ElAbominacion]

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.

After re-reading what he intends I can see what you’re saying more clearly. He doesn’t define proma facie platforms and editorialized content. He doesn’t make Twitter’s unjustifiable suspensions and censorship a case of consumer law violation, either.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

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

Like seriously people, and @Null. All this inane doomposting needs to stop. It just sours moods and gets nobody anywhere.

You can do something about this, or you can just cry and whine about it. Your choice.

 

[Troonos]

It's blowing my mind how many retarded bootlicking boomers on this thread are actually defending what will be the death of this website and the internet as a whole. I thought the average age of KF's userbase was below 55.

 

[YayLasagna]

Free speech is a tool abused by the bikes to undermine us. Anti-white speech should be banned.

Free speech is a tool abused by the bikes

the bikes

Oy vey you found us out goy! Just you wait till the cops come and put you in the basket!

 

[Christ Cried]

It's blowing my mind how many retarded bootlicking boomers on this thread are actually defending what will be the death of this website and the internet as a whole. I thought the average age of KF's userbase was below 55.

Getting older made me realize I don't give a fuck about economics or government, I only care about my people, my extended family. I'm basically General Zod.

 

[Not Really Here]

Even if ISPs starting tacking on a streaming premium there's a good chance it gets eaten by streaming services themselves, not consumers.

Companies don't pay for anything, costs always get passed on to the consumer.

 

[Shield Breaker]

It's blowing my mind how many retarded bootlicking boomers on this thread are actually defending what will be the death of this website and the internet as a whole. I thought the average age of KF's userbase was below 55.

There's a difference between 'lol calm down' and defending this possibly happening.

 

[The Cum Consumer]

I respect the idea why this could be an issue but it sounds a lot like when net neutrality was going to kill everything and then the onlines kept going exactly as before.

Net neutrality was being debated as recently as last year. It's not even close to a solved issue yet.

 

[Revo]

This thread reminds me of the posts made in March-April 2020 on Wu-Flu Megathread because of all doomerposting made by many participants here.