Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[Null]

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

Section 230 does its job precisely as it should. If you want to give companies civil liabilities for improper termination from platforms, that is what should be legislated.

>"Does 230(c)(1) actually do anything at all?"
yes you stupid fuck kill yourself

 

[Turd Cow]

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.

Yeah, I agree to this statement. This site is becoming similar to reddit but mostly full of people migrating from 4chan.

Also, does null know how suicide actually works? I doubt it

 

[(‿ˠ‿)]

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.

Here's mine: Twitter is not legislation, and Trump uses it to say asinine shit that never comes to fruition on a weekly basis. That asinine shit is always a bluff to bring whoever he's beefing with to the table, or try and get them to modify their behavior in some way to avoid further repercussions.

The last three years have been him making big public threats that led to panicky idiots saying "omg this is it, WWIII is happening" or "i knew it the fourth reich is upon us see u in the camps bro" which then amount to little or nothing. I see lots of the same people here who always mock him for threatening the nuclear option on twitter, and then doing nothing IRL, now panicking because of a fuckin tweet like they just got amnesia and forgot everything from 01-01-17 onwards. I'm not one of those guys who thinks Trump is always playing 26D underwater chess boxing but come on there's an obvious, simple, and repeating tactic of Trump using huge threats to try and get quick concessions.

The meaning of the words "REPEAL 230" is obvious in a literal sense, but even assuming it isn't one of his usual bluffs it's currently about as meaningless as him posting that he hereby declares the sun illegal. One because twitter is non-binding, but two because 230 is a law in US Code. That means it was passed by Congress, and separation of powers means he cannot currently in any way, shape, or form actually repeal a law without enough bipartisan support to form a majority in both chambers.

I and a few other people have been asking HOW he could possibly repeal 230, when yesterday's EO was likely the extent of his legal options regarding modifying the law, and have gotten crickets in return. Democrats might be up for it in the future, as evidenced by Biden coming out yesterday and saying he too wants to repeal 230 so he can require platforms to police user content for "misinformation," but until they throw their weight behind it what can Trump actually do? It's unlikely Dems will currently support a repeal when it's shaping up to be such an effective wedge issue, as you can clearly see here. They might be all for it under Biden should he win because they've recently developed such a huge boner for censorship in the name of the supposed greater good, but currently their constituents want them to spite Orange Hitler at every turn, so that's what they've been doing on most issues and I don't see that changing.

As others have stated repealing 230 would instantly hurt him as well when the platforms drop him like a hot potato to avoid getting sued into oblivion by the #resistance, so what's the motivation there? I've seen posters claiming he must be too dumb realize it, which is possible on a personal level since he's a shitposting real estate agent and not a lawyer, but the executive isn't just Trump sitting in an empty room and overturning laws via social media. Like every other admin it's also a bunch of staffers and lawyers who ARE legal experts being paid by the president as advisors- I mean come on do you think Trump wrote yesterday's EO? Did you read it?

The staffers and lawyers who did write it would sure as hell know that a repeal of 230 would nuke their boss's precious social media presence, and unless they're secretly trying to fuck themselves over and get fired just to spite him, they've definitely mentioned it.

So yeah, all signs I've seen so far point to his being Twitter Bluff #23055 in order to put platforms on blast and get them to stop manipulating their user content (and thus a lot of public discourse) like publishers. I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong and a Trump-backed repeal goes anywhere, but until then I'm kinda scratching my head at the sheer panic I'm seeing here

 

[Null]

I'm not one of those guys who thinks Trump is always playing 26D underwater chess boxing but come on there's an obvious, simple, and repeating tactic of Trump using huge threats to try and get quick concessions.

I'm so tired of the president being a retard and a liar and having to factor that into my thought processes.

oh this is fine because he's a retard and a liar and it won't actually happen. he's just lying again so people give him what he wants with as little effort as possible. so it's okay, I don't have to take him seriously.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

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.



That's not how opinions work, by definition.

Yes I'm saying exactly that. We're talking about an administration that's responded to a global pandemic by putting it's fingers in its ears and yelling "La la la I can't hear you dying it's China's fault!" Then claiming that actually 100,000 deaths is freakin' AWESOME because it makes America best at something somehow. Trumps perceived intellect is a result of his father, a much smarter, shrewder businessman leaving him so much money that he's basically immune to poverty. He's in power because much smarter men decided that a useful idiot in the white house would benefit them and it really has. If he has any foresight it's restricted entirely to the function of turning money into more money. When he took the presidency he admitted that he didn't actually realize how much work it would be and had no idea that a President has to replace the entire administrative staff. He thought he was taking over as Chairman of the Board of America.Inc and didn't realise that he couldn't just waltz in and start issuing orders and do very little actual work. He spends unfathomable amounts of taxpayer money on leisure travel, mostly to resorts he himself owns to play golf, something which he slated his predecessor for doing far less than he has. He's spent his presidency eroding regulations and protections for all American citizens at work and at home to the direct benefit of the people who helped fun his campaign. He's undone years of progress towards universal healthcare in the US because that'd hurt pharma and insurance companies. His rallies are never ending parades of self aggrandizement and backslapping which serve no purpose other than to stroke his own ego.

So do I think an ego-maniacal, money obsessed hypocrite with a hugely narcissistic personality, a total lack of concern for the average citizen and a complete lack of any statesmanship or political acumen would go after a piece of legislation that would allow him to silence his critics without really taking a moment to think about it? You're damn right I do!

Also, regardless of definition, opinion countered by opinion is not and has never been a form of censorship,.

 

[[Redacted]-san]

First you need to learn just how fucking stupid the average person is and then realise that 50% of them are even dumber than that. People from the USA are highly retarded people, everyone used to say "the american dream" that doesn't even exist. It's not Trumps fault, if anything, he's broken the mould of all the stupid cunts that came before him. If you ask 100 people all around the world who's the most hated ignorant despised nation..... 90 of them will answer the same thing. But this was the same going back 20 years.

Yeah, it's very depressing if you think about it. Way too many people in the US are pretty braindead stupid. I'm still ashamed to be an American sometimes. And nothing will change.

 

[(‿ˠ‿)]

I'm so tired of the president being a retard and a liar and having to factor that into my thought processes.

oh this is fine because he's a retard and a liar and it won't actually happen. he's just lying again so people give him what he wants with as little effort as possible. so it's okay, I don't have to take him seriously.

and yet again someone fails to tell me how a tweet is actually going to repeal 230, or how Trump can actually do it through any other means. Sorry it's stressing you out so much, I get this site rides on the ragged edge of viability so yet another threat must be existentially frustrating, but until there's legislation in the pipe this seems to be about as likely as the merge happening and sonichu finally taking his vengeance upon us. I'll be freaking out beside you when either of those things happens, but at the moment all we have is a stupid boomer tweet that cannot be anything BUT a bluff unless 1) every House Democrat crosses the aisle to nuke 230 along with him or 2) Trump hops in a mech and stages a one-man coup to become King Of America

I'm not a political scientist nor a robot scientist, but neither of those things seem exceedingly likely

 

[Null]

yet again someone fails to tell me how a tweet is actually going to repeal 230

His EO attempts to "clarify" the language of the law by saying that if it does something he doesn't like, it's not in "good faith".

You missed the point of my post so whatever. I said I'm fed up having to factor in mental handicap and outright duplicitousness into every single thing he says.

 

[Symalsa]

Here we go. Academia coming out to support suppression of speech online.
>mask off we’re backing trump conservatards

Twitter Had Been Drawing a Line for Months When Trump Crossed It - Th…

archived 30 May 2020 11:31:37 UTC

archive.is

 

[#KillAllPedos]

Newspapers work on a whitelist, forums operate on a blacklist. You have to be invited by the editor to write for a newspaper. I do not personally sign off on every post here.

But Section 230 is not actually going away. The EO doesn’t purport to revoke immunity for sites like KiwiFarms. You don’t act like Jack Dorsey (from what I can see anyway). So why are you worried?

All the EO does is ensure social media sites don’t abuse their immunity to advance their own editorial content when it would be otherwise actionable. What could possibly be your objection to that?

 

[Ghostse]

Twitter is committed to losing money. It hasn't ever made a dime.

Yo my friend, you are 100% wrong. In 2017 twitter made its first quarterly profit. They made about a billion in 2018, and as of the close of 2019 they have made back all their losses, initial funding, and are in the black.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/twtr/financials

That said, "making money back" is not enough since that ignores interest/lost opportunity on the large investments in the company.

I believe what you are looking to call them out on is their stupidly high market cap, which before getting mega wrecked, represented about 30+ years of profits at 2018 levels.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I'm so tired of the president being a retard and a liar and having to factor that into my thought processes.

I'm so tired of people pretending that a lying politician isn't is an anomaly.

We're talking about an administration that's responded to a global pandemic by putting it's fingers in its ears and yelling "La la la I can't hear you dying it's China's fault!"

You actually don't have a damn idea about what's been happening the last five months and it's staggeringly obvious. Even going on to A&N or Happenings, or-- I dunno-- going and watching/listening to C-SPAN would have prevented you from saying something so flagrantly asinine.

Then claiming that actually 100,000 deaths is freakin' AWESOME because it makes America best at something somehow.

As opposed to the 2 million they were initially projecting in the absence of any mitigation.

Trumps perceived intellect is a result of his father, a much smarter, shrewder businessman leaving him so much money that he's basically immune to poverty

You also don't know how business works on a fundamental level. If he was truly incompetent, all of the businesses of his that currently stand could have and would have gone under. I don't not buy that his father was better than him, but excuse me if I don't think that someone whose extent of knowledge of the national response to the pandemic doesn't extend much beyond the frothiest mouths of Breadtube knows what he's talking about.

He's in power because much smarter men decided that a useful idiot in the white house would benefit them and it really has.

You mean the electorate? Shoot, tell that to the people denigrating his base as uniformly racist backwater hicks.

When he took the presidency he admitted that he didn't actually realize how much work it would be and had no idea that a President has to replace the entire administrative staff. He thought he was taking over as Chairman of the Board of America.Inc and didn't realise that he couldn't just waltz in and start issuing orders and do very little actual work.

Your ignorance is on full display in this comment. You seriously think that even a CEO doesn't have to do any work such that he'd be completely unprepared to do more than "very little" of it in a larger venue.

He's spent his presidency eroding regulations and protections for all American citizens at work and at home to the direct benefit of the people who helped fun his campaign.

Sure, he has.

He's undone years of progress towards universal healthcare in the US because that'd hurt pharma and insurance companies.

Universal healthcare? In a country of 300+ million? A country that's actually a federation of semi-autonomous states with their own governmental and economic structures, some of which by themselves have populations that rival those of countries with nationalized healthcare? You probably thought Bernie Sanders was a visionary and never thought to question how much the yearly cost of his "medicare for all" would be-- never mind that regardless of the excesses of the pharmacy industries and the insurance companies, they need money to even hope to innovate.

So do I think an ego-maniacal, money obsessed hypocrite with a hugely narcissistic personality, a total lack of concern for the average citizen and a complete lack of any statesmanship or political acumen would go after a piece of legislation that would allow him to silence his critics without really taking a moment to think about it?

You're not arguing that he wouldn't "think about" the ramifications of what he's supposedly doing, you're arguing that he's somehow blind enough to shoot himself in the foot without considering the very obvious immediate consequences to his own goals, despite the wording of the EO he just put out, despite being a businessman, and despite having the decision making capacity of the Executive Branch.

Also, regardless of definition, opinion countered by opinion is not and has never been a form of censorship,.

If they wanted to fact-check his opinion with an opinion, doesn't that defeat the purpose of their fact-checking initiative? What would even be the point? The primary issue is that they're the ones that get to decide what articles serve as good and helpful fact-checks.

 

[Null]

So why are you worried?

I'm so tired of people pretending that a lying politician isn't an anomaly.

I'm so tired of people making excuses for Trump when it's been shown he is Israel's #1 Shabbos Goy.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

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.

Let’s not pretend that § 230 is on par with a Constitutional right. The First Amendment was drafted by the Founding Fathers, for the benefit of all citizens, after vigorous public debate, and it was ratified by every state. By contrast, § 230 is one piece of federal legislation, likely drafted by a tech lobbying firm, for the benefit of a relatively small number of companies (who no doubt overestimate their own importance). Section 230 doesn’t protect your or me, but it protects every Chinese-run corporation renting space in Silicon Valley. Frankly, § 230 is just another giveaway to corporate interests, akin to a tax loophole or something like that.

Section 230 is not on the chopping block. But if it were, I suspect the republic would survive.

 

[(‿ˠ‿)]

His EO attempts to "clarify" the language of the law by saying that if it does something he doesn't like, it's not in "good faith".

You missed the point of my post so whatever. I said I'm fed up having to factor in mental handicap and outright duplicitousness into every single thing he says.

The EO mentions "good faith" several times, and as far as I can see none of them say it's about complying with his secret personal likes or dislikes or whatever:

"In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree."

Of import seems to be "deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree." So here the EO criticizes social media not for the content they HOST, but for they content they unfairly REMOVE under the guise of it being "objectionable." Doesn't seem like that applies here, since the farms doesn't really ever seem to remove any legal content or ban people for their opinions no matter if they're stupid or offensive or whatever

Here's the next two references:

"(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"

again, the mentions of "in good faith" don't seem at all to removing liability protections for hosting things "he doesn't like." Rather, it seems to be saying that shit like social media removing or manipulating mundane content en masse that doesn't actually violate TOS, without proper cause or warning, while having little to no appeal process, but letting blue checkmarks with the Proper Opinions slide, all the while claiming to be an impartial platform that should receive special liability protection meant to foster free speech, isn't "acting in good faith." Again, unless I'm super exceptional I don't see how that applies to the farms or any other website that hosts controversial content while taking a laissez-faire approach to moderation. It's about unfair content curation and removal, not the content itself. You don't censor anything legal, it's pretty clear what few things will get you banned or censored here, you've personally warned users beforehand the few times I've seen you need to take direct action, and I've never seen you do anything like go mad with power and ban swaths of people you disagree with ala SA/Reddit/Twitter. What am I missing here?

 

[#KillAllPedos]

View attachment 1333310

You are aware that Trump cannot repeal legislation by way of executive order, right?

 

[Null]

You are aware that Trump cannot repeal legislation by way of executive order, right?

"why are you worried"
"he wants to do something stupid"
"you realize he can't do something stupid without stupid people's support, right?"

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Pinot Pierrot]

You are aware that Trump cannot repeal legislation by way of executive order, right?

His concern is that Trump even raised the subject in the first place. He'd rather that Section 230 is never mentioned again in any context that isn't when it is being upheld.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

"why are you worried"
"he wants to do something stupid"
"you realize he can't do something stupid without stupid people's support, right?"

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So are “officially off the Trump train” now because he made a dumb Tweet? Are you going to run to the arms of the party that would throw you in jail simply for saying “nigger?” If Hillary Clinton were president, you’d be extradited to New Zealand by now. Yet somehow this is the thing that upsets you?

I like your site, and thanks for making it, but I really don’t see why this is such a big deal to you. You’re literally getting mad at the internet

 

[Radioactive Man]

Null maybe this is an opportunity, maybe now's the time for you to message Trump while he's still mad and offer to setup the volkstwitter for him, make him think it was his idea, it'll be great, fuck Trump, but a patsys a patsy.