Plagued Biden Derangement Syndrome - Blue man bad, KF, /pol/, Twitter and Reddit sperged over the 46th president

The powers that be are already pushing to purge all non-leftist internet sites anyway. Blame whoever you want for starting it but it's been a problem for years, especially after 2016's upset election results.

Trump is a fucking idiot for using Twitter in the first place considering how against him Big Tech is, Section 230 or not those fucks play dirty and the fall of free speech on the internet is probably inevitable. Even without bringing up Section 230 it's become even worse in the past month or so, with all the attempts at suppressing information about the election result disputes. Biden/Harris will be a hundred times worse if left unchecked, and will do far more damage than simply repealing 230.

Either way, the Wild West era of the internet is over.
The Internet's fucked either way. Politicians are too thin-skinned, of course they'd want to destroy something that lets everyone make fun of them or talk about how much they hate them. Corporations too, and we all know how much those two groups are in bed with each other.
 
Null has outright stated that if Section 230 repeal passes, the Farms and any attempt to make a successor site like it goes up in fucking flames like the Hindenberg. So does 4chan, Parler, Gab, [insert alternative social media site you use here]; anything even remotely resembling the "old Internet" in the US has to either operate quasi-legally on the deep web for vanish like morning mist. But sure- destroy free speech online to own the libs.
Even as a right leaning user, I absolutely agree with the liberals here on this.
 
What? Did you miss his tardrage over Section 230?
Section 230 repeal isn't censorship, it just opens up websites to liability which would result in them getting destroyed by dumb lawsuits from people they annoyed. I absolutely oppose it but it's completely compatible with the first amendment.
 
Section 230 repeal isn't censorship, it just opens up websites to liability which would result in them getting destroyed by dumb lawsuits from people they annoyed. I absolutely oppose it but it's completely compatible with the first amendment.


Would you agree with the notion that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences?
 
Would you agree with the notion that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences?
Yes, unless you're talking about legal consequences, in which case no. The text of the first amendment states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]
There's no way repealing Section 230 violates this. It's just a terrible idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PepsiVanilla
Section 230 repeal isn't censorship, it just opens up websites to liability which would result in them getting destroyed by dumb lawsuits from people they annoyed. I absolutely oppose it but it's completely compatible with the first amendment.
Trying to repeal the law that allows websites like Twitter to exist certainly is censorship.
 
Yes, unless you're talking about legal consequences, in which case no. The text of the first amendment states

There's no way repealing Section 230 violates this. It's just a terrible idea.

Is a lawsuit not a legal consequence? Would not having your average retard or goverment official be able to wield the hammer of legality to crush a website not count as such? Would it also not violate the freedom of assembly, be it publicly or in autistic forums?
 
Is a lawsuit not a legal consequence? Would not having your average retard or goverment official be able to wield the hammer of legality to crush a website not count as such? Would it also not violate the freedom of assembly, be it publicly or in autistic forums?
No. The first amendment protects people from the actions of the government (originally just the federal government, but later incorporated to the states by the 14th amendment). The government doesn't "allow" free speech, it has to respect the inherent right to it under natural law. Private actors can do as they wish according to the Bill of Rights.

Section 230 states that

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

This means that websites aren't legally considered publishers. If someone publishes a defamatory book, he's held legally responsible for it, but Twitter and Kiwi Farms aren't responsible for defamation on their platforms. Treating websites as publishers would be a bad decision, but it wouldn't be censorship any more than book publishers are subject to government control now (bear in mind loads of anti-Trump books have been physically published over the past few years). The problem is that anyone could just post defamation on any site and then have it held legally responsible then, whereas with a book publisher the publisher has to approve the book before publishing it.
 
Last edited:
No. The first amendment protects people from the actions of the government (originally just the federal government, but later incorporated to the states by the 14th amendment). The government doesn't "allow" free speech, it has to respect the inherent right to it under natural law. Private actors can do as they wish according to the Bill of Rights.

It seems, to me, that opening the floodgates to lawsuits is very much a legal consequence; and that government officials would qualify as government; calling them private actors due to them bringing up civil litigation under their given name as opposed to acting in name of the "state" as an organism seems disingenuous and ripe for abuse (which, I would guess, is precisely why they want to repeal §230).

You are technically correct, in that it doesn't violate said amendment in a to the letter interpretation; it could however violate the spirit of it by having the government act, again, via private actors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strayserval
It seems, to me, that opening the floodgates to lawsuits is very much a legal consequence; and that government officials would qualify as government; calling them private actors due to them bringing up civil litigation under their given name as opposed to acting in name of the "state" as an organism seems disingenuous and ripe for abuse (which, I would guess, is precisely why they want to repeal §230).

You are technically correct, in that it doesn't violate said amendment in a to the letter interpretation; it could however violate the spirit of it by having the government act, again, via private actors.
I agree that I'd expect politicians to sue websites for defamation under their own names if 230 was repealed. One comical and very lolcow-ish example would be if Michelle Obama decided to sue the weirdos who accuse her of being a man. But they're not acting as the government as a whole in that case.
 
What? Did you miss his tardrage over Section 230?
I'm well fucking aware of it. Besides, aren't private companies trying to censor the internet already? They can call anything they want misinformation and run smear campaigns against anyone who objects. Section 230 or not, a lot of sites are rather partisan. Twitter and YouTube are notorious for taking sides politically, especially after the still disputed 2020 election results.

Section 230 or not, things will be far worse under a Biden presidency. Do you seriously think the Left will allow criticism to even exist if given a choice in the matter? Hell no.
 
Last edited:
I'm well fucking aware of it. Besides, aren't private companies trying to censor the internet already? They can call anything they want misinformation and run smear campaigns against anyone who objects. Section 230 or not, a lot of sites are rather partisan. Twitter and YouTube are notorious for taking sides politically, especially after the still disputed 2020 election results.

Section 230 or not, things will be far worse under a Biden presidency. Do you seriously think the Left will allow criticism to even exist if given a choice in the matter? Hell no.
Biden has also talked about repealing 230, but he's likely to have the senate against him so he won't be able to actually do it. They're both about as bad on that issue.
 
Yeah, acting like both sides don't have a bone to pick with 230 is dumb. Trump wants to repeal it because websites are putting up disclaimers saying he's stupid, Biden wants to repeal it because those websites aren't putting up ENOUGH disclaimers saying he's stupid.
 
I'm well fucking aware of it. Besides, aren't private companies trying to censor the internet already? They can call anything they want misinformation and run smear campaigns against anyone who objects. Section 230 or not, a lot of sites are rather partisan. Twitter and YouTube are notorious for taking sides politically, especially after the still disputed 2020 election results.

Section 230 or not, things will be far worse under a Biden presidency. Do you seriously think the Left will allow criticism to even exist if given a choice in the matter? Hell no.
Can someone tell me what the fuck “the Left” is? Because I cannot think of a single thing “the Left” agrees upon as a whole.

Do you actually mean “a vocal minority of idiots on Twitter”?
 
Yeah, acting like both sides don't have a bone to pick with 230 is dumb. Trump wants to repeal it because websites are putting up disclaimers saying he's stupid, Biden wants to repeal it because those websites aren't putting up ENOUGH disclaimers saying he's stupid.

This is why future U.S. Presidents will need to have computer science or cybersecurity degrees so they can force other politicians and lobbyists on how the Internet works. It will be useful even if Silicon Valley has to ask them for more money to fund into these social media companies.
 
This is why future U.S. Presidents will need to have computer science or cybersecurity degrees so they can force other politicians and lobbyists on how the Internet works. It will be useful even if Silicon Valley has to ask them for more money to fund into these social media companies.
Or years of experience on Kiwi Farms. That will also teach them not to be lolcows.
 
Can someone tell me what the fuck “the Left” is? Because I cannot think of a single thing “the Left” agrees upon as a whole.

Do you actually mean “a vocal minority of idiots on Twitter”?
They tend to agree upon Orange Man Bad, and their control goes far beyond a few idiots on the internet.

Silencing critics tends to be something the AOC socialists and corporate Dems both agree on. Hell the Bolsheviks didn't agree on everything but they still took over Russia. Radicals are rarely 100% in agreement even if they have some common objectives.
 
They tend to agree upon Orange Man Bad, and their control goes far beyond a few idiots on the internet.

Silencing critics tends to be something the AOC socialists and corporate Dems both agree on. Hell the Bolsheviks didn't agree on everything but they still took over Russia. Radicals are rarely 100% in agreement even if they have some common objectives.
The Soviets spent their first few decades purging each other over minor disagreements. That reinforces his point. Leftists love infighting, even when they win.
 
Back