Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet

[Zero Day Defense]

Even fucking Congress could see that, in goddamn 1994. It's perverse that anyone can't see it in 2020.

Did I miss something? I don't think anybody's gearing up to repeal Section 230 for multiple reasons, not least of which being that it was a law that they crafted and passed in bipartisan manner in a Republican Congress.

Spoiler

inb4 deep fried "REPEAL SECTION 230"

 

[Null]

For now, I'm increasingly convinced that the entirety of 230 actually does nothing

Then you're delusional. Trump isn't blustering about "nothing". He's not tweeting out to repeal something no one's ever heard of before. It's a section of a law as small as a single page of A4 paper and it has been the focus of studies since its inception. If you can do research into case law and not see how important it is you're hopeless.

These are all the same pathetic arguments people gave before and after the Verizon Lawyer got into the FCC and broke the back of Net Neutrality. Everyone cheered the following day, for indeed the sun did rise again, but it will take time before the companies empowered by that decision become as bad as they are in other countries I've lived in without similar provisions.

So too will the sun rise if Trump gets his way. Functionally, everything will be the same (except for this site, which will be gone). But slowly, over years, case law will form. The first lawsuits for defamation will come in. Posts and videos on big sites start disappearing due to to defamation threats and C&D letters. It'll take 10 years for this to really boil, in the same way the DMCA took decades to go from a simple law stopping piracy to the #1 source of censorship on the Internet that even laymen understand because it impacts every single content creator on YouTube.

You, the humble, docile niggercattle, don't think two steps ahead. You, the humble, docile niggercattle, are property, and are treated as property, and you enjoy being treated as property, and that is why I give up. I don't have any urge to be the owner of nigglecattle. I am a space alien and I will have my alien temple. When the day comes to choose liability over for every single thing people say on this site, or simply giving up, I will simply give up.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I can't even be mad. I'm actually unironically impressed.

EDIT: Upon further examination, this is like slapping a mask onto a guy except that you put gorilla glue on the mask in just the right places

My swagger has been reduced by 90%

 

[AnOminous]

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.

Only if it's an actual SLAPP. And only if it's filed somewhere with an anti-SLAPP statute, which why the fuck would you file it there when if you're suing a non-resident U.S. citizen, you can sue in any District Court in the country? Also SLAPP is currently not applied in (most) federal courts under the Erie doctrine because it is considered a procedural rule and is preempted by the Federal Rules such as 12(b)(6) which do not have provisions for fee shifting.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

Then you're delusional. Trump isn't blustering about "nothing". He's not tweeting out to repeal something no one's ever heard of before. It's a section of a law as small as a single page of A4 paper and it has been the focus of studies since its inception. If you can do research into case law and not see how important it is you're hopeless.

These are all the same pathetic arguments people gave before and after the Verizon Lawyer got into the FCC and broke the back of Net Neutrality. Everyone cheered the following day, for indeed the sun did rise again, but it will take time before the companies empowered by that decision become as bad as they are in other countries I've lived in without similar provisions.

So too will the sun rise if Trump gets his way. Functionally, everything will be the same (except for this site, which will be gone). But slowly, over years, case law will form. The first lawsuits for defamation will come in. Posts and videos on big sites start disappearing due to to defamation threats and C&D letters. It'll take 10 years for this to really boil, in the same way the DMCA took decades to go from a simple law stopping piracy to the #1 source of censorship on the Internet that even laymen understand because it impacts every single content creator on YouTube.

You, the humble, docile niggercattle, don't think two steps ahead. You, the humble, docile niggercattle, are property, and are treated as property, and you enjoy being treated as property, and that is why I give up. I don't have any urge to be the owner of nigglecattle. I am a space alien and I will have my alien temple. When the day comes to choose liability over for every single thing people say on this site, or simply giving up, I will simply give up.

What do you propose we do, Josh? Should we vote against the guy who wants to repeal § 230?

Consider this:
Instead of scrapping § 230, we fix it. Suppose we amend § 230 or replace it with a new statute that does not grant immunity broadly, but instead grants it strategically? Suppose instead of immunity being the general rule, publisher liability is the general rule, subject to enumerated exceptions? Forums such as KF could be immune under a “closely held discussion forum” exception, or “niche discussion forum” exception. Platforms such as YouTube and Twitter, which are publicly traded and capture large sections of their respective social media markets, would not be eligible. This way, you can keep your site, and Twitter is accountable for its actions. Everyone wins.

I can tell you one thing: § 230 is not fine the way it is. It allows big corporations to harass and censor little people on the internet. Perhaps that’s okay for you as a site owner, but it’s shitty for everyone else. If it ultimately gets repealed, life will go on. And if you use that as an excuse to shut your site down, I got news for you—an enterprising person will make another lolcow forum, and your users will simply migrate there. So instead of insulting everyone who disagrees with you, maybe keep an open mind.

 

[fuzakeru na]

View attachment 1333310


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

let the TDS flow through you. Next you'll be saying Hillary was a better choice and that trannies are just misunderstood

I will simply give up.

much like your dick gave up after being mutilated, you are now throwing a hissy fit over something that doesn't concern the site or the sites users. I guess this is what happens when you're literally unable to cum

 

[Pina Colada]

@Null Worst case scenario you decide to shut the Farms down, will there be an archived site of backups kind of like what you did with Spergatory (unless the repeal will affect that as well)? Or will that take too much work? Just curious about alternative archives.

 

[AnOminous]

What do you propose we do, Josh? Should we vote against the guy who wants to repeal § 230?

Consider this:
Instead of scrapping § 230, we fix it. Suppose we amend § 230 or replace it with a new statute that does not grant immunity broadly, but instead grants it strategically? Suppose instead of immunity being the general rule, publisher liability is the general rule, subject to enumerated exceptions? Forums such as KF could be immune under a “closely held discussion forum” exception, or “niche discussion forum” exception.

Great, then you get to spend $100K or so right off the bat just arguing whether you're that or not, instead of just citing 230 and the case more or less instantly going away.

 

[zap2theextreme]

lmao at trump
lmao at this site

just lmao

 

[MadDamon]

What do you propose we do, Josh? Should we vote against the guy who wants to repeal § 230?

Consider this:
Instead of scrapping § 230, we fix it. Suppose we amend § 230 or replace it with a new statute that does not grant immunity broadly, but instead grants it strategically? Suppose instead of immunity being the general rule, publisher liability is the general rule, subject to enumerated exceptions? Forums such as KF could be immune under a “closely held discussion forum” exception, or “niche discussion forum” exception. Platforms such as YouTube and Twitter, which are publicly traded and capture large sections of their respective social media markets, would not be eligible. This way, you can keep your site, and Twitter is accountable for its actions. Everyone wins.

I can tell you one thing: § 230 is not fine the way it is. It allows big corporations to harass and censor little people on the internet. Perhaps that’s okay for you as a site owner, but it’s shitty for everyone else. If it ultimately gets repealed, life will go on. And if you use that as an excuse to shut your site down, I got news for you—an enterprising person will make another lolcow forum, and your users will simply migrate there. So instead of insulting everyone who disagrees with you, maybe keep an open mind.

I mean you can always not use these site to begin with. There is many alternative sites for you beside twitter, youtube and sites that will censor you.

 

[SolidZone 26]

I mean you can always not use these site to begin with. There is many alternative sites for you beside twitter, youtube and sites that will censor you.

The number of free speech sites are getting less and less everyday. I can not think of a gaming news site that will not censor and ban you for not agreeing with the mods.

 

[#KillAllPedos]

Only if it's an actual SLAPP. And only if it's filed somewhere with an anti-SLAPP statute, which why the fuck would you file it there when if you're suing a non-resident U.S. citizen, you can sue in any District Court in the country? Also SLAPP is currently not applied in (most) federal courts under the Erie doctrine because it is considered a procedural rule and is preempted by the Federal Rules such as 12(b)(6) which do not have provisions for fee shifting.

Many circuits do allow defendants to avail themselves of state anti-SLAPP laws, and I suspect SCOTUS will give us some uniform standards eventually. But even if he’s in a circuit that doesn’t, § 230 is not the only defense out there that will achieve a quick dismissal. Yeah, it might take some lawyering, and he might need to retain an attorney, but so what? Plenty of non-internet businesses manage this just fine. Perhaps he can retain you, or you can work out a barter arrangement. BTW, there are ways to get fee awards in federal court, even if there’s no applicable fee shifting statute. The point is, the world doesn’t end if § 230 goes away (which it isn’t anyway). Josh has plenty of remedies if people wanna file frivolous suits against him. It’s more likely that the feds get him before frivolous litigants though.

 

[King Ghidorah]

Wake me up when null stops acting retarded

 

[slartifartblast]

On one hand, 230 needs to absolutely stay.
On the other, I would love to see twitter and co bitchslapped for being idiots.

he might need to retain an attorney, but so what? Plenty of non-internet businesses manage this just fine.

So, I got to be a fly on the wall on a SLAPP case regarding shit said on a private internet forum and lemme tell you - the lawyers will absolutely drag those on because hey, billable hours. The autist that was getting SLAPPED actually turned out to be an autistic legal nerd so much that he successfully represented himself and won the case, but it took four years and basically a second job for him.

If you think this shit is as simple as "retain a lawyer", lol no.

 

[Pygmy Giraffe]

Trump does this all the time. He thinks he's a master of rhetoric, and ends all of his statements with a dramatic flourish. He's just drawing out his political enemies. But if shit goes south, give me a call, @Null. There's a space reserved for you in The Compound.

 

[thejackal]

I'm over Trump as POTUS. Let's move on. He's not even delivering the hands off shit that was part of his platform.

 

[AnOminous]

Many circuits do allow defendants to avail themselves of state anti-SLAPP laws, and I suspect SCOTUS will give us some uniform standards eventually. But even if he’s in a circuit that doesn’t, § 230 is not the only defense out there that will achieve a quick dismissal.

Even a 12(b)(6) requires actually arguing the merits of the case. Shepardize any jurisdiction for 47 U.S.C. § 230 though and you will find dozens if not hundreds of cases where simply raising it immediately gets the case dismissed. If you have to argue merits in any way, shape or form the cost goes up tenfold. It's entirely possible a legitimate defamation claim gets brought and in that case, you're going to be arguing not anti-SLAPP but rather technical arguments about vicarious liability that you could lose. And then you'd have to argue the actual case. Null can't afford that shit.

Also the trend is for federal courts not to use state anti-SLAPP rules, with the Fifth Circuit being the most recent and the status of such laws in the Ninth Circuit being highly questionable at best. In any event, why would anyone bring the case in any of those against a non-resident U.S. citizen when they can choose their forum?

 

[#KillAllPedos]

I mean you can always not use these site to begin with. There is many alternative sites for you beside twitter, youtube and sites that will censor you.

Why? I like this site. I wouldn’t be on it otherwise.

Even a 12(b)(6) requires actually arguing the merits of the case. Shepardize any jurisdiction for 47 U.S.C. § 230 though and you will find dozens if not hundreds of cases where simply raising it immediately gets the case dismissed. If you have to argue merits in any way, shape or form the cost goes up tenfold. It's entirely possible a legitimate defamation claim gets brought and in that case, you're going to be arguing not anti-SLAPP but rather technical arguments about vicarious liability that you could lose. And then you'd have to argue the actual case. Null can't afford that shit.

Also the trend is for federal courts not to use state anti-SLAPP rules, with the Fifth Circuit being the most recent and the status of such laws in the Ninth Circuit being highly questionable at best. In any event, why would anyone bring the case in any of those against a non-resident U.S. citizen when they can choose their forum?

I realize § 230 is a very convenient defense for social media websites who engage in otherwise tortious conduct. I also realize that it’s a convenient way for courts to clear their dockets, a fact which I suspect is at least partially responsible for the court’s passivity on this issue. While it’s certainly not the only remedy for dismissing a frivolous suit, we agree that it is the fastest and most convenient if you happen to be/run a social media website.

What we seem to disagree on are the policies and priorities § 230 advances. You seem to think it promotes speech, and indeed that was one stated policies behind the legislation. You also seem to think it is more worthwhile to protect site owners than site users, and in some respects it is. In your view, § 230 reflects the proper policy priorities.

But at some point, the interest of website owners in avoiding litigation must yield to the public’s right to speak freely. If § 230 effectively gives big tech firms a right to censor citizens freely, what good is it to us? As it is currently used, none of the benefits of § 230 accrue to natural persons. Twitter can defame, deplatform, and harass anyone it chooses, and § 230 protects all of it. Worse still, many of these tech companies don’t even represent American interests. When it is used this way, § 230 discourages speech. It taints our political process. It harms commerce. It visits a great evil upon our society, and it can no longer be justified as a matter of policy.

And so we disagree on how important § 230 actually is. If it were up to me, I would revise the statute to outlaw the sort of abuse we see from big tech. I would not let it continue in its current form. The consequences of having § 230, from a private citizen’s perspective, far outweigh the consequences of not having it.

Not that any of this matters, because as has been pointed out many times, § 230 is not being repealed any time soon. Josh’s fear is, at best, highly premature.

Anyway, it’s been a pleasure discussing this, even if we disagree. I’ve posted a lot in this thread, and so I’m gonna take a break. Cheers.

 

[Rupin]

Vote for El Trumpo.

 

[AnOminous]

What we seem to disagree on are the policies and priorities § 230 advances. You seem to think it promotes speech, and indeed that was one stated policies behind the legislation. You also seem to think it is more worthwhile to protect site owners than site users, and in some respects it is. In your view, § 230 reflects the proper policy priorities.

I think it is more useful, and actually results in protecting site users from at least nonsensical, frivolous claims that rely solely on intimidating an ISP with threats of litigation with no intention of actually pursuing the user, just silencing him. I do not think people in general should not be held responsible for defamation if they commit it, though.

The simple fact is that Section 230 disposes of innumerable cases against ISPs, cheaply and quickly, which you can verify by just Shepardizing the statute in any imaginable jurisdiction in the United States. There is absolutely no purpose served by holding ISPs responsible for the actions of their users, other than making it simple and easy to squelch unpopular speech by targeting ISPs, even with no actual intent of ever filing a legal action.

The only other kind of immunity that could serve such a purpose, and pretty much everywhere with Internet (even shitholes like the EU) have some (usually markedly inferior) form of ISP immunity, is something like the takedown protocol of the DMCA and that, again, would vastly favor frivolous claimants over users and, much like the DMCA, more or less force self-doxing to contest any claims.

With Section 230, this site and sites like it exist and can expect to continue to exist. Without it, they're gone, either because their operators will shutter them or with the inevitable lawsuit they can't afford to defend.

Not that any of this matters, because as has been pointed out many times, § 230 is not being repealed any time soon. Josh’s fear is, at best, highly premature.

Well, yes, it's not actually happening and probably won't, and almost certainly won't specifically because it is Trump who wants it and barring an unlikely event like the Republicans re-taking the House (and somehow actually deciding this was a priority which even a Republican majority is unlikely to do), a Democratic House will spitefully not do virtually anything Trump wants.

The EO could encourage bad FCC regulation, or Department of Justice regulation, but I'm not sure what exactly so I don't even know what to worry about there.