Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[Huitzilopochtli]

Yes, we're all well aware that the EO means effectively nothing on its own, we're talking about his Twitter screeds now, the ones where he screams "REPEAL U.S. CODE 230!!!" in all caps with multiple explanation marks.

Yes, we're aware that these screeds do not constitute legislation, we're talking about the possibility of things coming over the horizon that might be currently in the works without our knowing.



"Allow me to just lay down and die because I have no choice." ~the Founding Fathers, apparently.


This isn't an autocracy that grants unlimited powers to a Caesar, there are provisions in place to prevent bullshit from happening on a whim. This democratic republic we've set up is the only reason we have a chance of stopping anything before it gets out of control.

By all means, take up arms over social media.

I know Trump isn't Caesar. We vote other apes to bullshit mountain to do battle with him. Stop thinking you're more important than you are you discount lolcow.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Didn't some Cuck from South Carolina and Mitch McConnell propose having a council of 19 or so senators that decide which websites are able to qualify for that kind of protection? They too wanted to repeal it and limit it for their preferred sites.

Yes, it's called EARN IT.

 

[Jeff Heaney]

call me optimistic, but i'll wager he will just shit himself and do nothing

 

[grump]

Yes, we're all well aware that the EO means effectively nothing on its own, we're talking about his Twitter screeds now, the ones where he screams "REPEAL US COD 240!!!" in all caps with multiple explanation marks.

This thread: Trump: I'd kill for a slice of pizza!
Kiwis: Trump threatened to commit murder!

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

This thread: Trump: I'd kill for a slice of pizza!
Kiwis: Trump threatened to commit murder!

Hyperbole to criticize hyperbole.

 

[MadDamon]

Trump: Imma destroy the first amendment. Of course, to protect me, I mean all of you commoners.

Magatard: God lord Trump are doing godly work. Let's tear down the first amendment.

 

[Shoj]

On the bright side if the Internet is over we can start dealing with the issues in our local communities instead of other peoples issues hundreds of miles away

 

[fuzakeru na]

On the bright side if the Internet is over we can start dealing with the issues in our local communities instead of other peoples issues hundreds of miles away

the internet died 10 years ago, there was a concerted push from music and movie industries to take it over and all the nerds just sat and it happen. It went from a medium where only people with similar interests spent time to an entire industry where advertisers and cocksuckers circulated.

 

[The Spice boi]

For the last time. 230 HAS NOT BE REPEALED. All Trump has done is drafted an EO that is likely GOOD for kiwifarms and shitposters. You're all losing your heads over Null's overliteral reading of one 2 word tweet. He already has an EO that does everything he wants, why would he go off and do something else that absolutely does nothing for him or his ego at all and only benefits his enemies?

Okay, I suppose everything is always possible but wholesale removal of all protections is no more likely than it has ever been....from Trump's side at least, and its made less likely because you can actually see what they probably want to do in the EO text iteslf. Even if he wanted to he couldn't do it by himself and why would Congressional Republicans want to torpedo their support base because a single Tweet by Drumpf gives the illusion that 230 is bad when in actuality they would benefit simply by changing a small portion?

Man people here are no different from gullible boomer normies. In a couple months all will be forgotten yet again and Null will have you guys eating out of his hands again with some theory of Drumpf invading Earth at the head of a Martian army.

I'm not losing my mind, i couldn't give less of a shit. It's funny, laugh brah

 

[Zero Day Defense]

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.

The blowback of repealing Section 230, if in fact that's what's happening (which isn't the case according to the actual legally empowered EO), then it would actually affect Trump directly by making him absolute poison to every platform-turned-publisher, stifling his freedom of speech and expression.

So why do you think that that's where we're going?

I'm still baffled as to how Trump is even the president of the US to begin with. He's such a lying fool most of the time.

If we cared or could do anything about politicians lying, we wouldn't need to have a debate about term limits.

And he says untrue statements on Twitter, and now he's having a temper tantrum just because he gets fact checked on the site.

You do realize that they fact-checked an opinion he gave, right?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

To the people trying to rationalize away Trump's statements, I have a question, how else could you possibly interpret "REPEAL 230!" as anything other than literal? In what way could it be ironic or figurative? I see no room for ambiguity in such a statement.

The blowback of repealing Section 230, if in fact that's what's happening (which isn't the case according to the actual legally empowered EO), then it would actually affect Trump directly by making him absolute poison to every platform-turned-publisher, stifling his freedom of speech and expression.

So why do you think that that's where we're going?

There's no guarantee that Trump even recognizes this as a possibility.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

The blowback of repealing Section 230, if in fact that's what's happening (which isn't the case according to the actual legally empowered EO), then it would actually affect Trump directly by making him absolute poison to every platform-turned-publisher, stifling his freedom of speech and expression.

So why do you think that that's where we're going?



If we cared or could do anything about politicians lying, we wouldn't need to have a debate about term limits.



You do realize that they fact-checked an opinion he gave, right?

Trump doesn't have the foresight to realize it will affect him. He's got fuck you money and believes that you can basically use your magical money powers to get away with anything you want, and he has, and does, and has no reason to believe that will change. He's trying to silence his critics, his team DMCA'd an artist recently for selling a political cartoon on freakin' Artstation or wherever. It was unsuccessful, but shows how petty he is when it comes to satire and criticism.

We don't really care about politicians lying as long as they tell us nice lies like "Vote for me and I'll turn America back into the America your dad remembers, or at least pretends to remember from Norman Rockwell paintings," or "Vote to leave the EU and this entirely spurious number on a bus is exactly what we'll give the NHS!" Bad isn't it?

An opinion can still be objectively wrong, or exaggerated, or a lie. They linked to a better informed article on mail in ballots.

 

[The 3rd Hooligan]

Trump is just a lolcow who somehow became the fucking president

Isnt that the req. for the job anyway?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

You know things are going up shit creek when Eugene is making sense.

Granted, he's only taking advantage of the situation to look smart and egalitarian and would probably turn on section 230 if Trump held the opposite position today.

Also good to note is that the majority of posters in this Twitter feed are enormous retards who don't give a shit about the implications of the statement they came to rebuke, just the same old TDS clown show shit nobody cares about.

 

[Radioactive Man]

I don't want to live in a world where Eugene is a voice of reason.

Granted, he's only taking advantage of the situation to look smart and egalitarian and would probably turn on section 230 if Trump held the opposite position today.

I've been wondering about this, maybe having Trump pushing this is the best thing that can happen to stop it going through.
But it seems like a lot of people have their reasons to see 230 gone, so knowing our luck it'll be what finally gets agreement from all sides. If only so future leaders can exploit it while blaming it on their predecessors.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Trump doesn't have the foresight to realize it will affect him.

You're telling me that a wealthy businessman that became president of the United States is incapable of foresight as it directly affects him, even as the EO he wrote up is concerned with who receives Section 230 protections instead of its mere existence? A businessman with the decision making tools of the Executive Branch doesn't know risk analysis?

Maybe you should stop using the Trending pane on Twitter for your news source.

An opinion can still be objectively wrong, or exaggerated, or a lie.

That's not how opinions work, by definition.

You know things are going up shit creek when Eugene is making sense.

You really think that makes sense?

Of course only Congress can repeal Section 230-- why do you think he's only saying "Repeal Section 230" as opposed to actually doing it himself? Why do you think Congress wouldn't be interested in Section 230 at all when it's clear that platforms(?) like Twitter unevenly apply their ToS in order to stifle voices outside their agenda that are closer to home while allowing terrorist and CCP propaganda to remain untouched, in an election year?

Now, I don't think Congress is interested in outright repealing or otherwise neutering Section 230, but that's because the goals of Trump and the GOP can be achieved by merely enforcing the law as it stands and taking note of what Twitter is and isn't focused on at all, and also because the Communications Decency Act was a bipartisan bill with strong bipartisan support in a Republican Senate and House.

 

[Superman93]

That's not how opinions work, by definition.

The sky is red in my opinion.

 

[Ghost In The Rain]

Nobody wins if this fucking fat retarded kike repeals this shit you dumb fuck

Unless, you know, if it actually gets replaced by something that works as the functional version of 230 people want.


With all due respect to the shouting from everyone involved here, I think there does exist some better situations that would require rewriting. Mostly just 230(c)(2), I.E. the "You arn't civilly liable for deleting/restricting access to essentially anything/anyone for any reason". Okay, we can get knit-picky about the actual wording, what with its good faith and all, but when you put in "otherwise objectionable" in there it essentially gives a pass for a blanket blacklist. Really, the whole thing needs to be written to be more in line with the stated goal of "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material", or perhaps the goal should be reevaluated. One way or the other, the goal and the code don't match.

230(c)(1) inevitable gets dragged into things because it is the actual important bit, the part where Twitter and Alphabet and Null is not currently liable for the death threats, calls for violence, and everything else that is continuously on their site because they do not pre-moderate and approve everything before posting. 230(c)(1) specifies that, because it exists, Null isn't liable for what I say, I'm not liable for what he says, etc. However, I would like to quickly ask if anyone can point me to anything that indicates that Null would be any more liable for what I say if 230(c)(1) didn't exist. Wouldn't there need to be something else specifying him as publisher / speaker of my words for him to be held as such? Also, at what point does information I provide stop being information I provide? I mean, take my avatar for instance, I don't recall which resolution I provided it to you in. If your server resized it, does that still count as my information? Just saying, but anyways, 230(c)(1) is in general fine, and a useful line of statement to have exist.

Oh, and while I'm asking dumb legal questions, let me just throw this out here... 230(e) states that none of this has any effect on criminal law, IP law, state laws, comm privacy, or sex trafficing law. So wouldn't that mean that Twitter should still be held liable as a publisher for the child porn or terrorist materials on their site because even though 230(c)(1) says they didn't publish it 230(e) says that it doesn't effect the enforcement of that law? Like, how does that actually work? I feel I've just lapped myself and come around to the point of "Does 230(c)(1) actually do anything at all?"


Anyways, what this is all not addressing is the whole problem of monopolies/giants in the tech space. There is a desire driven by anti-authoritarian ideologies for government to impose some sort of restriction on the tech giants. Let me emphasize that for those of you who don't get the message: The tech giants are considered the big authoritarian bad guy assholes, and there exists a desire to give the government power to reign them in to protect the little guy. So to that end, I'd love to see some takes on a rewrite of 230 that attempts to address that issue. We have processes by which to change this shit, and I'll not be one to dismiss the whole thing before it has even started.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The sky is red in my opinion.

I dunno man, I don't see the world through your eyes.

Unless, you know, if it actually gets replaced by something that works as the functional version of 230 people want.


With all due respect to the shouting from everyone involved here, I think there does exist some better situations that would require rewriting. Mostly just 230(c)(2), I.E. the "You arn't civilly liable for deleting/restricting access to essentially anything/anyone for any reason". Okay, we can get knit-picky about the actual wording, what with its good faith and all, but when you put in "otherwise objectionable" in there it essentially gives a pass for a blanket blacklist. Really, the whole thing needs to be written to be more in line with the stated goal of "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material", or perhaps the goal should be reevaluated. One way or the other, the goal and the code don't match.

The way you put it, that "blanket blacklist" can veer right into the stifling of speech.

 

[OnlyFacingRear]

For the last time. 230 HAS NOT BE REPEALED. All Trump has done is drafted an EO that is likely GOOD for kiwifarms and shitposters. You're all losing your heads over Null's overliteral reading of one 2 word tweet. He already has an EO that does everything he wants, why would he go off and do something else that absolutely does nothing for him or his ego at all and only benefits his enemies?

Okay, I suppose everything is always possible but wholesale removal of all protections is no more likely than it has ever been....from Trump's side at least, and its made less likely because you can actually see what they probably want to do in the EO text iteslf. Even if he wanted to he couldn't do it by himself and why would Congressional Republicans want to torpedo their support base because a single Tweet by Drumpf gives the illusion that 230 is bad when in actuality they would benefit simply by changing a small portion?

Man people here are no different from gullible boomer normies. In a couple months all will be forgotten yet again and Null will have you guys eating out of his hands again with some theory of Drumpf invading Earth at the head of a Martian army.

What the fuck happened to this place? It's slowly turning into reddit. The CoronoaChan thread is 1700+ pages of doomers. This place used to be the cool kids who skipped school, now it's band class with all of the scuttlebutt talk.

Get a grip faggots, it'll be okay.