Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

the autist of dojima said:
And the other half is a-logging worse than DSP detractors or being mindless sheep who parrot everything jewsh is saying
Your point being?
Click to expand...
I dunno, I want to believe that not everything Josh says is completely true about this and it isn't as bad as what it seems, though he obviously knows better about the implications of Tech and politicking, so I can't really say for certain.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: hinikuna damacy, Pina Colada, A Cold Potato and 2 others
#KillAllPedos said:
View attachment 1333372

“After the live-streamed mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand last spring, Democratic lawmakers sought changes to 230 as a method of ensuring that terrorist content is removed from platforms. They’ve responded to Facebook’s refusal to remove misinformation peddled by politicians in digital ads with threats to carve holes in the law as well.
...”

https://www.theverge.com/platform/a...section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

The other guy literally wants repeal § 230, specifically for the purpose of targeting you.
Click to expand...
Remind me again why near-senile old people are about the only ones to become president these days?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: cuddle striker, Sekirodiealot, A Cold Potato and 3 others
What I think would happen if it comes to pass:
Twitter, Facebook et all will drop outright censorship and put all that force into shadowbanning.
 
Coh said:
No and no.


I don't make money off of the Internet nor do I use it as my primary vehicle of social interactions. This basically only affects people that host sites, and I don't intend to do that. So yeah, it doesn't fucking affect me. Unless the Orange Nigger actually does even more anti-2A shit than the bumpstock fuckery or otherwise directly impede upon my rights, I actually don't care. Even if I am using the law implicitly by posting here, I can still express my 1A rights in the real world really.
Click to expand...
It will literally affect your life in one tangible way: Null will close this website and you will no longer be able to access it. That's just one you didn't think of. Imagine all the others.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: A Cold Potato, TheTism35 and rotollo
I don't know about the inner workings of 'the internet' but I would be interested in any answers/ thoughts to these questions.

Where does a website reside (legally). Is it where the servers are? Is it where your domain is registered. Where your network is based? Is is where you live?

Are you safe from other countries internet 'laws' if your website resides in a lawless country but it is accessible by other countries?

In a case like buzzfeed vs. HH are the damages against buzzfeed against the organisation/the website or the owner of the site? Who's bank account it at risk?

Hypothetically, if Josh turned over ownership of KF to all members, 230 was revoked and the site was charged to pay damages for defamation. Who would pay? Who would go to court if no payment was made?

Finally, are countries, as in say the G7, moving in on internet society and talking about international control?
 
Ghost In The Rain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Stratton Oakmont decision Section 230 undid. Without Section 230, if Null makes any moderation decisions at all, he automatically becomes the publisher of anything posted on the site and can be sued for it. As it is, if he is sued despite Section 230, all he has to do is cite Section 230 and poof, case goes away. He might get the same result without Section 230, but only hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Hastings Official
Null said:
I am done with Donald J. Trump because he has continually shown himself to be a pawn to Israel and Jewish interests while completing none of his campaign pledges and is now threatening the very foundation of American online enterprise which made us dominant in the field to begin with.
Click to expand...

I get rejecting Trump because he hasn't made good on his campaign pledges, but what's so bad about Jewish interests?
 
Piga Dgrifm said:
Both Guys Bad, just like always. Voting is so cool and definitely matters.
Click to expand...


I don't go by tweets or media coverage I go by results. So far Drumpft up to and including this recent EO has generally been far better for individual liberty than what we could have expected from a Hillary Presidency. Whatever you say about Drumpft he tends to surround himself with and appoint people who are smart and often more based than even establishment Repubs. The SC appointments are especially important. And his shitposting brings attention to things that would otherwise fly under the radar. Fakebook manipulation of politics mostly in favor of leftists ironically brought to the forefront because they're so butthut it happened to help Drumpf, Google and Twitter manipulation and banning brought to attention. His EO turns 230 more into something that actually protects users as well as corporations and he's rallied popular support among Dems for 230 safe harbor, while a Democrat would have just neutered it with nobody looking and no coverage. And you're unhappy about this?

I dunno, maybe it will all turn on us one day and I'll eat crow, but for now I'll continue to go by what has worked at least somewhat better. If you think you are better off under President Ocassional-Cortex dragged from your car off to prison for typing the word 'faggot' while on your way to the sex crimes tribunal to have your life even further destroyed before you can pay your divorced wife the 90% she's owed for cucking you because you are male have fun I guess.
 
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: DecimatedFerret, Return of the Freaker and Pina Colada
Null said:
>"Does 230(c)(1) actually do anything at all?"
yes you stupid fuck kill yourself
Click to expand...

Way to completely ignore the point that its just a fucking legal shortcut and without it there still isn't anything making its inverse true.

But hey, keep up with the hostility. Maybe you'll make people say we should repeal 230(c)(1) and replace it with something that explicitly says that every computer user shall be considered the speaker and publisher of anything provided by any other computer user. That way you'll at least be able to actually have the strawman law you've been pointing at.

Hell, Cubby v Compuserve seems to back up the whole idea that 230(c)(1) functionally existed before it was written.

For now, I'm increasingly convinced that the entirety of 230 actually does nothing because it is protecting from things that don't actually exist, except for, as I said, in the situations outlined by 230(e), where it specifically doesn't apply and therefore can't even claim its protecting from anything, except it still seemingly does because twitter still has not been arrested for all that child porn that it itself is clearly publishing because without 230(c) applying to it then obviously twitter is the producer and publisher of that illegal content. All in all, this is seeming to be on par with the last 20 fucking times the internet whined about some legislative maneuvering. You know, the dozens of laws of which some got passed, some didn't, and none of them changed a fucking thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Return of the Freaker and Pina Colada
Ghost In The Rain said:
Hell, Cubby v Compuserve seems to back up the whole idea that 230(c)(1) functionally existed before it was written.
Click to expand...

Under Cubby, the ISP would become liable upon notification, so you'd have to take down the defamatory content to avoid liability. That's absolutely nothing like Section 230. The only reason Compuserve was held not liable was they had no knowledge the material would be defamatory, something which would be simple to get around by simply notifying them. The difference between Stratton Oakmont and Cubby is solely that Prodigy in Stratton Oakmont engaged in some degree of moderation.

Almost any existing discussion forum, even 4chan and Kiwi Farms, would not fall under the Compuserve rule, if it even applies any more. No high volume discussion board could even exist without some level of moderation, even if only for spam and CP.

Congress didn't step into action and enact a law in less than a year solely in response to a low level state court decision like Stratton Oakmont for any other reason than that it was blindingly obvious that allowing a rule like this to exist would be absolutely disastrous for the Internet. Even fucking Congress could see that, in goddamn 1994. It's perverse that anyone can't see it in 2020.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, Return of the Freaker, Secret Asshole and 4 others
AnOminous said:
Yes, the Stratton Oakmont decision Section 230 undid. Without Section 230, if Null makes any moderation decisions at all, he automatically becomes the publisher of anything posted on the site and can be sued for it. As it is, if he is sued despite Section 230, all he has to do is cite Section 230 and poof, case goes away. He might get the same result without Section 230, but only hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees later.
Click to expand...

He can still get the case dismissed early on with an anti-SLAPP motion. It can be filed as a responsive pleading, just like a motion to dismiss, so it’s just as fast. Best of all, if the motion is granted, he can get the plaintiffs to pay his fees, sometimes with a multiplier.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: DecimatedFerret
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back