Regarding the apparent and imminent repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the future of this website.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheryl Nome said:
No social media site can withstand the literal tens of thousands of defamation claims that would be filed against them upon repeal of 230. They might not lose like, any of them, but it would be a death by a thousand cuts.

every day.

for the rest of their existence

this isn't a one time cost, that cost is recurring, forever.
Click to expand...
If all the content is set to private or "members only" so that it can't been seen on search engines without registering an account, would that still be affected?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Terrorist said:
Biden wants to repeal 230 too and we have at least 4 years of him. If Orange Retard fails in his attempt, by no means will we be out of the woods.
Click to expand...
Not only does biden want 230 gone, he wants to make doxxing and hate speech criminal violations. If that happens then 230 won't matter (I think).
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Revo and zedkissed60
StraightShooter2 said:
If all the content is set to private or "members only" so that it can't been seen on search engines without registering an account, would that still be affected?
Click to expand...
Yes if the reach is large enough, the same way a newspaper can slander people even if its only sold to subscribers. It just has to have reach enough to cause damage.
 
StraightShooter2 said:
If all the content is set to private or "members only" so that it can't been seen on search engines without registering an account, would that still be affected?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it, that doesn't matter right now because Section 230 makes a distinction between online platform and online publisher. Right now a website is not responsible for posts made by users; each post by a particular user is 'self-published' on the platform by himself. Grand Tardwrangler Trump wants to eliminate this distinction because Facebook is mean to him or some shit, but he doesn't understand what's going to happen when platforms become publishers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong 😅
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Ozma (ZeTrannyJanny), Slap47, StraightShooter2 and 1 other person
It's been an honor

1587426117888.jpg
 
  • Feels
  • Late
Reactions: Revo, Brown Bricks, GigaKike and 1 other person
Sheryl Nome said:
No social media site can withstand the literal tens of thousands of defamation claims that would be filed against them upon repeal of 230. They might not lose like, any of them, but it would be a death by a thousand cuts.

every day.

for the rest of their existence

this isn't a one time cost, that cost is recurring, forever.
Click to expand...
Twitter would have to delete 99.9% of tweets considering most people use it for insults.
 
Sheryl Nome said:
No social media site can withstand the literal tens of thousands of defamation claims that would be filed against them upon repeal of 230. They might not lose like, any of them, but it would be a death by a thousand cuts.

every day.

for the rest of their existence

this isn't a one time cost, that cost is recurring, forever.
Click to expand...

And it would be for any site that has user posted content. Forums for games or hobbies, reviews, comment sections, social media posts. Now every company everywhere has to either shut it down or otherwise be on line the for defamation at any time, by anyone. Think of the money you could make if you set up a nice libel suit against Twitter if your nudes were leaked "accidentally" not only are you in the news you get a big payout.

No way they'd let it happen.
 
Grandpa Simpson said:
And it would be for any site that has user posted content. Forums for games or hobbies, reviews, comment sections, social media posts. Now every company everywhere has to either shut it down or otherwise be on line the for defamation at any time, by anyone. Think of the money you could make if you set up a nice libel suit against Twitter if your nudes were leaked "accidentally" not only are you in the news you get a big payout.

No way they'd let it happen.
Click to expand...
Lowtax could get serious vindication for people calling him a wife beater online.
 
Instant_Pot_User said:
...
Click to expand...
Here's the text:


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.

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

---

Hmm... it doesn't seem to specify accessibility; so as of right now, this means that even stuff like private Discord chats or stuff not available on search engines could potentially be affected.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Instant_Pot_User
HotPockets said:
"Update 12/5: The NDAA has passed through the senate86-14, more than the 2/3rds majority to override a veto."

So, does that mean we good? Or is this just a postponement? Seems like Sec. 230 coming up more and more, Biden might be next to take a crack at the law
Click to expand...
If they're hell bent on it, they don't have to do it now, and could do it in a separate bill once Biden is in office, so I'm unsure.

Also, I'm assuming that Wikis would be affected as well - I'm shocked that there's no notice on Wikipedia of this impending action.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Instant_Pot_User
StraightShooter2 said:
If they're hell bent on it, they don't have to do it now, and could do it in a separate bill once Biden is in office, so I'm unsure.

Also, I'm assuming that Wikis would be affected as well - I'm shocked that there's no notice on Wikipedia of this impending action.
Click to expand...
They are running a donation campaign*right now*
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Ol' Slag, Crippled_Retard, Aquinas and 1 other person
If it ends up being "amended" instead of nuked outright, hopefully it makes a distinction between static information which is viewable on search engines, versus content which isn't searchable (e.x. a private Discord chat isn't the same as a webpage viewable to anyone on Google with an internet connection).

If they take that route, then most social media sites could just de-list offending content from the search engines, and require a private account along with some kind of disclaimer to see any of the offending content which they still host.

For that matter, I'm curious what the litmus test on "defamation" is; something which is clearly a "joke" or pure "sarcasm" isn't the same as making a literal defaming statement. (Also, for any e-lawyers here - can you fill me in on what the standards of defamation for "public figures" are - my understanding is that they have to prove the statement was made with "actual malice").
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Vinluv Handesbukia, howyadoin and fartsnstuf
StraightShooter2 said:
If it ends up being "amended" instead of nuked outright, hopefully it makes a distinction between static information which is viewable on search engines, versus content which isn't searchable (e.x. a private Discord chat isn't the same as a webpage viewable to anyone on Google with an internet connection).

If they take that route, then most social media sites could just de-list offending content from the search engines, and require a private account along with some kind of disclaimer to see any of the offending content which they still host.

For that matter, I'm curious what the litmus test on "defamation" is; something which is clearly a "joke" or pure "sarcasm" isn't the same as making a literal defaming statement. (Also, for any e-lawyers here - can you fill me in on what the standards of defamation for "public figures" are - my understanding is that they have to prove the statement was made with "actual malice").
Click to expand...
Lets be very clear, what the conservatives want is to not get censored on social media by twitter/facebook

What the democrats want is inscrutable, buy probably violating the 1st amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spatula and BlueSpark
Sheryl Nome said:
Lets be very clear, what the conservatives want is to not get censored on social media by twitter/facebook

What the democrats want is inscrutable, buy probably violating the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Both the Republicans (Trump) and Democrats (Biden, Gabbard) etc have supported cutting it according to the thread title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back