- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet
- Thread starter Distant Stare
- Start date
Boobie Bomb
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
That is how you make enemies. By censoring people online.
Faggotron The Negromancer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 8, 2020
are you tired of winning yet?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
I have become one with the win, and I'm still not tired.
(i didn't actually vote for Trump, though)
- Joined
- May 8, 2020
And that's exactly what I voted for Trump to do.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2019
Trump hasn't really done much of anything concrete yet, and I doubt he will repeal section 230 when he probably gets his second term.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2018
Josh, you know very well that the reason newspapers are liable for information they post on their websites (e.g., for publishing defamatory information) is because they are information content providers within the meaning of § 230. That is, they are deemed to be "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided." This is true, even if the source of the information is a third party (they may both be liable).
So how is it any different when Twitter curates information from third parties to conform with its own speech? That's essentially what CNN does. The plain language of the statute suggests it wouldn't exempt Twitter from liability if it acted as an information content provider. To be sure, Twitter's pattern of political censorship directly contravenes § 230's statements of findings and purposes (inter alia, that "interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity"). If the factual and conceptual premises behind § 230 immunity are false as to Twitter, why should Twitter be immune? It would serve no interests beyond the interests of Twitter (and perhaps the political Left).
As for your concern that "Repealing the law in its entirety makes everyone personally, civilly liable for anything published on their platform," it is already the case the natural persons are liable for the content they post online. If the policy behind § 230 is no longer served, why should these giant corporations get a pass? What makes them so special? If anything, natural persons should be immunized from liability for what they post online, not the websites/corporations who host it.
I don't know that Trump's solution is the best or only solution (executive orders rarely are), but something has to be done about these large corporations using their position to censor people. Like it or not, they are wielding power, and they have to be accountable somehow. And if Trump's order bludgeons social media sites into playing fairly, IMO it will have solved the problem.
I don't see why you think it will make them censor more. If they increase censorship, they'll almost surely lose § 230 immunity. If they refrain from censorship, they'll keep their § 230 immunity.
Nowhere in the executive order does it say "King Trump hereby repeals 47 U.S.C. § 230 and all websites are henceforth strictly liable for all content hosted." It simply directs the DOJ and other agencies to promulgate regulations clarifying the application of § 230. The good news is that if you fit within the law's protection, you have nothing to worry about. If you act as a neutral host, you'll continue to be immune from liability as a publisher. If you start censoring posts or curating content for political reasons, you tread on infirm ground.
And on that note, it should be noted that § 230 by its terms was never supposed to apply broadly to every single social media site under the sun. That is something that companies (and apparently courts) took for granted. That may change, and IMO that's a good thing.
So relax, you're gonna be just fine.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2020
That genuinely sucks. Gotta pick your battles though, and a retarded faggot like trump acting like this won't make it worth it.
- Joined
- May 10, 2019
Maybe this has already been said too many times, but I will say it again: there's no fucking way that Congress will repeal Section 230 unless Republicans win large majorities in both houses and keep the White House in November, and even then it's not a guarantee. There are just way too many interests with way too much money for this to get by easily. Trump is just swinging his dick to scare Jack, most likely. Even if he actually believes he can do this, then he is going to be majorly fucking disappointed.
Just tell America they are an irrelevant nation in the atlantic and they can go fuck themselves don't forget to remind them that you don't give a single solitary fuck what section 230 of the CDA says.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2020
Tldr: nothing will happen and everyone is going to feel really stupid after the fact. It keeps happening time after time man
grump
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
Okay, so I skimmed through the EO and I don't really see anything about 'repealing 230'. There are two relevant parts of the law in section (c)
The first paragraph is the actual safe harbor protection.
The second is the 'porno section' whose purpose is to (encourage) and provide protection for censorship and removal of khantent. This is the section that the EO is focused on. Specifically it wants to clarify the 'good faith' exemption that prevents platforms from being turned into publishers and prevent taxpayer monies from going to violators of this new clarified exemption if they remove khantent. The conditions are if they (restrict) material based on
(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.
So its not really a massively unworkable procensorship and takedown EO . It is actually a potentially massively unworkable anticensorship and antitakedown EO. Even if Kiwifarms was somehow affected by this (when its clear that only giant media companies are the intended target) it could be in the clear by becoming even more wild and unfiltered.
So in short I don't know where Null is getting is 'Lol Trump repealed 230 and they will come for the farms next!' or 'lol Drumpf wants me to take down everything!' reading which appears to originate with him. Even the EFF which he linked to does not mention this angle and merely opposes it on the grounds of Drumpf interfering with social media and orangeman bad! Don't get me wrong, there are threats to repeal 230 completely, for example from Dems, but it doesn't seem to be in this particular EO.
For additional details you can read.
First thoughts on the section 230 executive order
It's all about demanding transparency from the powerful
reason.com
I mean if I'm misreading anything feel free to step in with any corrections...
XtrmGamr719
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
I'm pretty sure the EO and the repeal threat are separate things.
Okay, so I skimmed through the EO and I don't really see anything about 'repealing 230'. There are two relevant parts of the law in section (c)
The first paragraph is the actual safe harbor protection.
The second is the 'porno section' whose purpose is to (encourage) and provide protection for censorship and removal of khantent. This is the section that the EO is focused on. Specifically it wants to clarify the 'good faith' exemption that prevents platforms from being turned into publishers and prevent taxpayer monies from going to violators of this new clarified exemption if they remove khantent. The conditions are if they (restrict) material based on
(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.
So its not really a massively unworkable procensorship and takedown EO . It is actually a potentially massively unworkable anticensorship and antitakedown EO. Even if Kiwifarms was somehow affected by this (when its clear that only giant media companies are the intended target) it could be in the clear by becoming even more wild and unfiltered.
So in short I don't know where Null is getting is 'Lol Trump repealed 230 and they will come for the farms next!' or 'lol Drumpf wants me to take down everything!' reading which appears to originate with him. Even the EFF which he linked to does not mention this angle and merely opposes it on the grounds of Drumpf interfering with social media and orangeman bad! Don't get me wrong, there are threats to repeal 230 completely, for example from Dems, but it doesn't seem to be in this particular EO.
For additional details you can read.
First thoughts on the section 230 executive order
It's all about demanding transparency from the powerful
I mean if I'm misreading anything feel free to step in with any corrections...
Guntleman
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 8, 2020
If they repeal it, can I take over? I'll make posting only available through tor and just allow browsing on the clearnet site.
I heard you mention some people suggesting you go tor-exclusive. I'm sure you know this but I'm gonna put it here to clear something up.
Even if Null was to transition into exclusively hidden service, since everyone knows who he is, he wouldn't be protected. Someone anonymous, like Guntleman, would have to take over and they'd have to take great care to remain anonymous.
grump
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
Like I said, even if Drumpf tweeted 'Revoke 230' all he really cares about and wants is to punish Twatter for censoring his tweets, not make it easier to block his supporters, and his underlings understand this and will implement it accordingly. And thats if this even survives the challenges intact which is unlikely so the idea Drumpf wanting to legalize police dragging out MAGAhat wearing kiwis into the streets is absurd.
Cardboard Box Mountain
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2018
You don't need an asteroid. We have a plague.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
This is going to make so many tranny heads explode
"On one hand, if Trump repeals this, he'll have carte blanche to run rampant online. On the other hand, we'll finally be free of the Kiwis! Brain....melting....downnnnnn..."
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That's completely against the fundamental rule of law that you are responsible for what you personally do, but others generally are not. The principle that ISPs were responsible for what you posted, instead of you, the guy who posted it, was a gargantuan mistake by one court in 1995 that was immediately corrected by Congress in 1996 with Section 230.
Why should ISPs be responsible for what their users do, instead of the users who actually did it?
If Section 230 is repealed, while this is the death knell of sites like Kiwi Farms (and really pretty much anyone but Facebook and Google), it also permanently ends the social media lynch mobs troons love so much. It's been nearly impossible to curtail lynch mobs like the ones that go after "transphobes" with made up lies and lurid accusations, or the one that went after Vic Mignogna, or any of the other "cancel" victims. Most of the perpetrators are judgment proof losers. Even if you sued them and won, they have nothing.
Without Section 230, though, you don't even have to litigate. You know that you can just sue Twitter or whatever other platform there is, for every single defamatory statement, and don't even bother with the broke brain welfare troons who said it. Twitter will dump the troons just to save their own skin because they're not going to pay to defend these worthless people.
The whole reason for Section 230 is to prevent exactly that kind of flood of cheap, cookie cutter litigation, which much like frivolous DMCA complaints, bad actors can just flood ISPs and platforms with until they get their way.
So yes, Orange Man doing this would finish us off, but they're next on the chopping block and anyone unhappy about this place going away will have a nice fat chunk of spare time freed up to go after those motherfuckers personally.
Last edited:
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Repealing section 230 would be the defacto thing to push the election out of his favor, imo. He will have effectively neutered the most important telecommunications apparatus ever devised and killed entire industries over it. No more independent content, no more entrepreneurial ventures, ect. This also means education will take a decline too, so much potential just going down in flames because fuck Twatter, scorched earth time.