Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[Jack Awful]

I doubt he’d be able to get agreement on that, even in his party. Even if he could, Democrats control the House.

Dems hate 230 too.
Biden is in support of 230's repeal so hate speech can be better limited.

 

[Tikbalang]

So where will the Kiwi remnants go in case of a worst possible scenario?

 

[אΩ+1]

I say good. Trump should revoke section 230. The internet was invented by the Jews anyways. Nothing like going to the library or opening a phone book. Same with smartphones. I hope the internet really does fucking go away. It was the worst invention ever, no matter what you people want to say about it. Maybe then people might go back to reading books or going outside for once. Same with smartphones. I fucking hate those things. Computers are also an entirely new invention that were designed to eavesdrop on people to begin with. Who was the fag Alan Turing? What was the Bombe? Or the Colossus? Computers were invented to spy on Nazi communications that used encrypted ciphers like the Enigma machine or the Lorenz cipher. The internet itself was invented by the Department of Defense. It's no wonder the NSA is spying on people. Of course they fucking would, because that's what computers and the internet was made for to begin with. Instead of making people smarter it makes them dumber. This social experiment was fun while it lasted guys, but then again, just remember that with Jews you ALWAYS lose, no matter how good it may seem on it's face.

You do realise that every communication network now uses TCP/IP these days.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

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.

I really hope our resident Trumptards read and understand the gravity of this. This is a grotesque attack on freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of little more than protecting the fragile, child like ego of the toddler who runs the US.

 

[slartifartblast]

You do realise that every communication network now uses TCP/IP these days.

Except the ones that use UDP exclusively.

I really hope our resident Trumptards read and understand the gravity of this. This is a grotesque attack on freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of little more than protecting the fragile, child like ego of the toddler who runs the US.

Dude, shit's clownworld. Call me a doomer, but I can't be arsed to give a fuck. Both parties are equally shit about this, and the technocracy isn't your friend either.

What, you seriously think that any entity with a modicum of power wants its subjects to be free? What are you smoking, and can I have some?

 

[Immortal Technique]

RIP the image that shouldn't ever be seen again after this thread . Don't worry, when everyone realizes that it's an aggressive negotiation tactic, it will be back when people stop thinking twitter posts are now U.S. laws.

If anything, blame the fucking unconscionable jannies of the world and their irresistible urge to try to control other people throughout the platforms. Bad jannies get the rope and get what they fucking deserve--powerlessness.

 

[grump]

I really hope our resident Trumptards read and understand the gravity of this. This is a grotesque attack on freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of little more than protecting the fragile, child like ego of the toddler who runs the US.

And you should read the actual 203 text and the EO, rather than just the hot take of a troll webmaster.

 

[King Ghidorah]

And you should read the actual 203 text and the EO, rather than just the hot take of a troll webmaster.

It's quite ironic people who would make fin of people who take the first statement they hear at face value proceed to do the exact same thing

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

I am displeased.

Neither party is correct here. Trump's shitposting was endearing in 2017 but has gotten real old real quick. Twitter is a censorous woke trash fire that needs no further explanation. Both are stupid. I doubt that Section 230 is in true peril but worry about further encroachments.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Right now, the only thing that would actually threaten Section 230 is the Trump DoJ or FCC coming up with some ridiculous, tortured interpretation of the Constitution that lets them claim that it's "unconstitutional" and some Boomer judge buys it. Aside from that, YouTube could go full Babylon Bee and declare that all videos need to play the Chinese National Anthem at the beginning, and House Dems would STILL block any intervention attempts because ORANGE MAN BAD.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Right now, the only thing that would actually threaten Section 230 is the Trump DoJ or FCC coming up with some ridiculous, tortured interpretation of the Constitution that lets them claim that it's "unconstitutional" and some Boomer judge buys it. Aside from that, YouTube could go full Babylon Bee and declare that all videos need to play the Chinese National Anthem at the beginning, and House Dems would STILL block any intervention attempts because ORANGE MAN BAD.

Like the DoJ that's on his side or one of those ridiculous boomer judges he installed in the Supreme court? God Trumptards are dumb.

 

[AnOminous]

I can respect a difference of opinion. But tell me... do you not find Twitter’s conduct reprehensible? And if § 230 protects that conduct, why would you want it to persist? If Twitter wants to hold that kind of power, they need to at least win an election. It cannot be acquired by way of gift from the legislature.

The law protects a lot of reprehensible conduct. A lot of people consider what the Farms does reprehensible, too. Not everything that is immoral is illegal, nor should it be, and sometimes, the cost of outlawing some conduct is too high to justify it. Ultimately, I do not give a fuck if Twitter ceases to exist entirely along with its userbase, but I'm not going to burn down my own house to get at them.

Explain to me how you think this EO will induce social media giants to further curtail our “ability to shittalk.”

The EO does very little to nothing. There's very little a President can do with an executive order about a law directed exclusively to how courts should handle civil defamation claims and other speech-related claims. Executive agencies have very little power over this.

I'm talking about what actually revoking Section 230 would do, and Trump can't do that.

 

[Male Idiot]

I am a tard, but if Kiwifarms had zero moderation and posts could not be edited, would that make it not an editorial?

 

[Smug Freiza]

First 8chan gets nuked from orbit and now Kiwi Farms? Will these kikes stop at nothing to destroy everything I love?

 

[AnOminous]

Suppose the owner is not a US LLC but a company created abroad by someone who is only in name director/owner of the company. This local person, let's call him Igor Ivanov and his company Sperg. So Igor Ivanov opened Sperg in Armenia, Sperg bought the domain in Venezuela, the servers are hosted in a few various countries. Sperg opens various bank accounts.

Great, so find this guy so we have someone to host the site after it goes down.

 

[bisterjeans]

So where will the Kiwi remnants go in case of a worst possible scenario?

A server physically located in russia.

 

[Super Smelly Vagina]

it'd be Null that'd be held liable for you saying naughty words.

Only if he starts doing heavy handed censorship that is considered editorial conduct. If he continues the "hands off" approach, then kiwifarms will still be protected by 230.

 

[The Crow]

@Null "All empires fall eventually."

 

[Balr0g]

So I got a question: to what level is "censorship" allowed? For example if my homecountry states in it's laws that glorification of Nazis (I think that is the easiest example) is forbidden then any platform has the right to do it. But everything else like "shadowbanning" or delisting popular channles due to unwanted opinions is a form of editorial censorship since it has to be put in manually (I mean no algorithm could detect that lest it is TOLD to do so)

 

[AnAccount]

Only if he starts doing heavy handed censorship that is considered editorial conduct. If he continues the "hands off" approach, then kiwifarms will still be protected by 230.


View attachment 1332725

repealing 230 would also repeal that part too tard.

In fact repealing 230 would ya know, repeal 230, so using part of 230 to explain why repealing 230 wouldn't effect someone is a moot point