Patrick W. Gilmore (he/him) is a fan of censorship of the internet - Also allegedly a massive sucker of tranny cock

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Lady Rackets Ass, JoshPlz and 1 other person
Tamara Knight said:
The state law is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
It is far from clear. The bar for commercial speech is much higher, that's why you can mandate food labels, have public telephone utilities serve everyone, etc. Take this summary of a net-neutrality case from Jones Day:
Broadband providers challenged the Open Internet Order, arguing in part that the net neutrality rules violated the First Amendment by forcing broadband providers to transmit speech with which they might disagree. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit upheld the net neutrality rules after concluding that nondiscrimination and equal access obligations do not violate the First Amendment. In a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, then-Judge Kavanaugh viewed the FCC's net neutrality rules as restricting broadband providers' editorial discretion over what content to carry over the internet in violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I am sympathetic to your sentiment that data brokers and surveillance companies should have their businesses shut down but I don't think there is any 1A path to it. A much clearer path would be passing a law (there ought to be a law! lmao) that makes them civilly liable.
In general, the first amendment is not up to speed with online public squares, just like how fourth amendment is not up to speed with the third-party doctrine. This is why the congress needed to pass a federal wiretap law: because there is nothing in the bill of rights that protected you - once you "willingly" gave your speech to the phone company, it was game over (this was before end-to-end encryption was feasible, but metadata attacks survive today.)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe, Richard Cheese and 9 others
Patrick W. Gilmore looks like a STD riddled pervert who probably has a whole closet full of skeletons to be so deadly afraid of a gossip forum.

He is also FAT and disgusting and I would not let my children anywhere near him.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe, Lizard Pope and 5 others
Tamara Knight said:
Richard Spencer coined the term, moron. He even founded a website called altright.com, you may have heard of it
Click to expand...
richard spencer is a filthy tolerant neoliberal who embraces zionist empire and rejects radically thirdworldist national authoritarian socialism who deserves to be shoved in a woodchipper
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe, Botchy Galoop and 7 others
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ and Ghost of Ted Kaczynski
Tamara Knight said:
The same applies to right wing doxing.
Click to expand...
This is not a right-wing website. We laugh at retarded rightoids as much as we laugh at retarded leftoids.

named said:
If you're trying to post someone's real name to change their behavior, what (legal) Step 2 is there?
Click to expand...
Changing someone's behavior is never the goal. The goal is to laugh as the world is burning. Do not add fuel to the fire. Do not try to extinguish it. Just enjoy the ride while it lasts.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe, Next Task and 5 others
Tamara Knight said:
Patrick W. Gilmore hasn't done anything except be an annoying libtard with a correct interpretation of the 1st ammendment. ISPs have no legal obligation to host content they don't like. Do I agree with that? No. But that's what you get with American-style Libertarianism. Build your own platform.
Click to expand...
This statement alone has proven that you just came here to stir up shit and have zero concept of the underlying problem that the censorship of this website exposes. 'Build your own X' is a bullshit statement. 'X' in this case was funded with government grants over the course of decades to incentivize private entities to build the underlying infrastructure of the internet. Build your own 'X' is a useless platitude designed to create so many barriers that it effectively censors anything you do not like. Even attempting to 'Build your own X' will lead to you and people like you attempting to firewall, deny, degrade, and outright sabotage an individual or group from successfully 'Building your own X'.

Payment Processors, TLDs, ISPs from a home ISP to a giant backbone ISP are 'X'. Even putting aside the insurmountable challenge of creating an analogue to the Internet, not to mention the bureaucracy that was implemented to prevent this from occurring and as a result create a natural monopoly of five or six companies with the capital needed to build and operate such a system.

I do not give a singular fuck what you believe, or what opinions you have of a website, individual, or collective group of people. Your argument is akin to disagreeing with Exxon Mobil; therefore companies that ship products to and from their refineries should not be allowed to use the Interstate Highway System. The IHS is publicly owned, financed with taxpayer money and critical to operate in society. The Internet is privately owned, financed with a combination of taxpayer money and private investment and equally critical to operate in society. The companies with their fingers on the pulse of the internet cannot be trusted to act in good faith, and delusional faggots like you and your illogical support of libertarianism (to meet your own ends and in bad faith) gives them the ammunition they need to sell crippling the internet to an uninformed public.

Motherfucker. Now I'm MATI.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Mayhem, 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe and 34 others
Tamara Knight said:
This is pretty disingenuous. The reason why you post someone's address publicly is because you are hoping that they will get harassed or be intimidated into silence. Not saying some people don't deserve it but have the balls to admit why you do what you do.
Click to expand...
I kinda have to agree.
We should simply return to the days of citizen duties being filled, and tar&feather people. Also a state, of the proper anti-progressive kind, would be really good at intimidating shitlibs into silence.
I'm too lazy to engage in online bullying and the sort. I just want to vote in the people that will put together the militarized police forces to do the job offline, in the Real World
 
  • DRINK!
  • Winner
Reactions: 820㎌Cap and Botchy Galoop
Fun fact, I know someone who worked with Patrick W. Gilmore (he/him) at Meta and allegedly HR had to talk to him multiple times about some questionable drawings found on his computer. In his defense, he claimed the depicted character "was actually a thousand year old demon who just happens to look like a small child."
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Dumb
  • Informative
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme, 820㎌Cap, Botchy Galoop and 7 others
Tamara Knight said:
The state law is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Communications infrastructure is regulated by the FCC. So for example, there's only so much space on broadcast frequencies, so even if you get a license to broadcast, the state has far more power to regulate what you say (because you're being given a limited resource from the community) and that's a constitutionally valid restriction on the first amendment.

ISPs with significant physical infrastructure are regulated for similar reasons. (only so much space to run cables from point A to point B)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: 820㎌Cap and Markass the Worst
>Waltzes in claiming "but muh DOOOOOOXING"
Nigger not one single company that I'm aware of has ever provided a real explanation of what content is a problem and what should be done about it, which is the most basic form of remedying a supposed breach of contract, which is what an "AUP violation" is.

They all say nothing, and drop or block without official explanation identifying problem content to justify their decision.

Probably because they're worried about getting fucking sued, and saying nothing provides no evidence. It has always been so obviously not about an actual breach of anything and the fact they always refuse to be specific proves it, after all, specificity can't hurt you if you're in the right, legally.

But please tell me more about how doxing is definitely the problem and if kiwifarms users just stopped posting the most basic of whitepages search results that things would get better. :story:
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Apocalypse Chew Chew, 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe and 9 others
HarblMcDavid said:
>Waltzes in claiming "but muh DOOOOOOXING"
Nigger not one single company that I'm aware of has ever provided a real explanation of what content is a problem and what should be done about it, which is the most basic form of remedying a supposed breach of contract, which is what an "AUP violation" is.

They all say nothing, and drop or block without official explanation identifying problem content to justify their decision.

Probably because they're worried about getting fucking sued, and saying nothing provides no evidence. It has always been so obviously not about an actual breach of anything and the fact they always refuse to be specific proves it, after all, specificity can't hurt you if you're in the right, legally.

But please tell me more about how doxing is definitely the problem and if kiwifarms users just stopped posting the most basic of whitepages search results that things would get better. :story:
Click to expand...
Don't forget that damn near every tech company hoovers up an astronomical amount of personal information (including addresses), then turns around and sells it to other fuckfaces. Fagtrick doesn't seem to take issue with that shit, because if he did, none of those tech companies would be on the clearnet.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Lord Xenu, Apocalypse Chew Chew, 820㎌Cap and 8 others
HarblMcDavid said:
>Waltzes in claiming "but muh DOOOOOOXING"
Nigger not one single company that I'm aware of has ever provided a real explanation of what content is a problem and what should be done about it, which is the most basic form of remedying a supposed breach of contract, which is what an "AUP violation" is.

They all say nothing, and drop or block without official explanation identifying problem content to justify their decision.

Probably because they're worried about getting fucking sued, and saying nothing provides no evidence. It has always been so obviously not about an actual breach of anything and the fact they always refuse to be specific proves it, after all, specificity can't hurt you if you're in the right, legally.

But please tell me more about how doxing is definitely the problem and if kiwifarms users just stopped posting the most basic of whitepages search results that things would get better. :story:
Click to expand...
There are exceptions, not like they're really any different, like Cloudflare saying there was "an imminent threat to human life" without telling Null or even specifying what the supposed threat was, donuts said some vague shit about "harassment" or "harmful content", and I think one of the temporary providers during #DropKiwiFarms said something about the complaint volume. But it's always vagaries said after the fact and without telling Null.

Null also said if there was a legal backbone to prevent ISPs from even having this power, they could just point to the law and say "my hands are tied" to obsessed freaks like Dong-Gone.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: 820㎌Cap, Autistic Joe, Richard Cheese and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back