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

[symantec]

In my opinion:

1. The potential for the 230 act to be repealed is small. Trump would have to convince republicans to prioritize "punishing" silicon valley over defense spending. Which could only happen given big tech was incentivized to spend more than military contractors.

2. If it is repealed, there would have to be an immediate replacement. Otherwise the courts will be flooded and the court system will not be ready for the deluge. This will put a strain on multiple jurisdictions within the united states.

3. This site is seemingly operated at a net if not gross total loss, if not then the margins seem to be very thin. Should enough vexatious litigants file, wouldn't the result be the same regardless of section 230 repeal?

I have no idea what the actual operating procedure is for this site, nor do I care to find out, I come here for entertainment and a sense of community. I get the impression from how Null speaks in this post, the forum is doomed to disappear because of an increasing lack of assets being available. To be in Null's position has caused disparagement of him as a person, his character, and so forth. The personal sacrifice it has taken to keep a simple free and open forum of ideas and discussion (the subject matter is irrelevant) in this capacity should be appreciated. Along with the personal sacrifice of many who operate sites based on the free exchange of ideas.

It's unfortunate that there is no underground, no hiding place that cannot be found out eventually. So people with either have to live with the consequences of defending their idealism, or forget they ever had a thought contrary to popular opinion in the first place.

I really enjoy having an outlet like this site to laugh at the misery of people who inflict it on themselves. It's unfortunate we won't get to archive the lessons of the past, and learn from the stupidity of others. All because litigation in this country is fucked beyond repair.

Heil Hitler.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/30/865813960/as-trump-targets-twitters-legal-shield-experts-have-a-warning

Some people feel repealing 230 will backlash. Kind of hard for me to understand myself. Is section 230 is gone websites can no longer claim they cannot be sued if a user posts something hateful.

But from now on websites can just claim they did not see the post then censored it as soon as possible. Facebook does this all the time. Sure people post messed up racist crap. Then like a year later all of it gets deleted and the user gets blocked. Its not like Facebook itself did not care to not censor the user. They simply have over a billion or so members and some stuff can just not be notified of fast enough and still they have to deal with every other user.

Now the truth they have to investigate what they are censoring before they censor it. Some things are blatantly hateful. Others are borderline hateful. Others are opinionated like "this black person pisses me off they raped 4 people and got away with it. Just like a black person would."

Anyone who investigates this claim can see its blatantly racist and hateful. The part at the end where they say "just like a black person would" gives it all away. But if people are just browsing key words and phrases trying to police 2 billion social media users then the first statement does not necessarily set off a red flag. The person pisses off the community they raped people and got away with it. At first glance it looks like a piece of opinion stated entirely openly. The account would have to be investigated to truly see a long history of racial discrimination. Hard to do with protection acts.

I was watching a show the other day about the history of MASH. You know the 70s Vietnam sitcom about doctors during the Vietnam war? Many people tried to remove the show saying it was too graphic for family tv and glorified people being hurt in war. It was ruled out in court nothing about the show discriminated against one race being more important in a war when surgery was done for a patient it did not discriminate against white or Vietnamese people although really you never did see a Vietkong being saved in the medical tent. Regardless the courts ruled the show could not be taken down as it was protected under the 1st amendment rights.

So what does this have to do with section 230? Well with section 230 around if someone is saying bad things about races or aspergers calling them spergs well lol the website just says "we will remove that user."

The problem is some sites are set up to let people say that stuff all day. Sites like....

.... Well like this one. LOL

But still removing section 230 just means now you can sue a site directly for things a person is putting on the site. But still the site can just say "we got to the comment on time and edited out when we saw it. The site gets a million comments a day its hard to keep up with all of them." So back to square one. Will all the lawsuits stick? No only a rare few will stick.

In a way it kind of doesn't change things. Even with section 230 you can still sue a site if comments exist that are not removed even if the site owners say they are not responsible for a user its still possible to prove they invoked the user rights to create the hate speech therefore they are responsible. But with section 230 its a lot harder.

I am sure if 230 is removed something else will be written in its place. Some guideline on pursuing legal action against a site for the content users create.

Its not like hate speech is legal or has been. Its just hard to filter out what is and isn't hate speech because under Amendments that protect freedom of speech a person can state their opinion that "I think black people rob the most out of any race." Some interpret that as hate speech. Others interpret it as 1st amendment protected expression of opinion.

Removing section 230 means you can directly after the site a lot quicker then you could by trying to first get the site to help you pursue and censor a hateful user.

in a way only sites that really promote hate speech will be in trouble. Ummm.... Those sites. Ummm... You know the ones. We have ummmm...... Heard of them.

But guidelines will still be set on how to pursue sites for promoting hate speech even without section 230 it will be a process. Likely a new section will be written in. What it will be we have yet to know.

"Racist and hateful" is nowhere in law. People already get banned for this. It's the left's defamation that will take the hit.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

"Racist and hateful" is nowhere in law. People already get banned for this. It's the left's defamation that will take the hit.

So why is the site going to close down umm... Er... Gigantic Faggot? Did I spell that right? Gigantic Faggot then why would the site be sued? Or do the lawsuits have nothing to do with user content at this point?

I am confused Gigantic Faggot. Also the left's definition? Trump is the one threatening veto's for a hard repeal of this thing.

Edit: oops you said defamation. Not definition. But still why is the defamation being defined as leftist at this point? Defamation is defamation. It kind of doesn't pick sides.

 

[symantec]

I'd like to remind those in this post that the only way Trump can possibly enact section 230 "reform" during this session is to enact a full repeal and force a replacement. Therefore a hard repeal could make sense, even though it's a fools errand if left in the hands of a thin majority of republicans in the senate. That could (should) be his train of thought, however he could just have asshat advisors.

Trump should've sought this earlier when all branches were under republican control. Unfortunately he didn't know what the fuck it was at the time, and too many republicans along with a majority of democrats are receiving funding from silicon valley.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

So why is the site going to close down umm... Er... Gigantic Faggot? Did I spell that right? Gigantic Faggot then why would the site be sued? Or do the lawsuits have nothing to do with user content at this point?

I am confused Gigantic Faggot. Also the left's definition? Trump is the one threatening veto's for a hard repeal of this thing.

Edit: oops you said defamation. Not definition. But still why is the defamation being defined as leftist at this point? Defamation is defamation. It kind of doesn't pick sides.

Well obviously this site is fucked. But more generally the left tend to engage in defamation while the right get banned for posting crime statistics.

 

[symantec]

Generally the left tend to engage in defamation while the right get banned for posting crime statistics.

It's really not a left vs right argument, it's expression vs suppression. I've seen plenty in the right-wing engage in similar behavior when they're in control. That's what this ultimately is all about, those who want to control the exchange of ideas vs those who want to open it up.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

That's what this ultimately is all about, those who want to control the exchange of ideas vs those who want to open it up.

No, it's people who want to control the exchange of ideas vs people who want others to control the exchange of ideas for them.

 

[nya001]

just as a reminder free speech in the US is not unlimited, these two come to mind:

1. can't give medical advice without a license
2. can't give legal advice without a license

as a reminder, section 230 (which Trump can't abolish by decree) of the CDA is not absolute (see below) and just besides this, just saying:

"the origin information for a Usenet posting can be completely obscured and unobtainable once it has propagated past the original server. Also unlike modern P2P services, the identity of the downloaders is hidden from view."

I mean one day if Moldova feels like shutting down archive.md it can.

"In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intelletual property claims (§230(e)(2))"

 

[KingCoelacanth]

BASED reasons why Section 230 should be repealed
1. God Emperor Trump said so, so it has to be true!
2. (Insert irrelevant 1984 quote here, who cares, it fits your agenda! 1984 goes with anything! Totally not overabused!)
3. SJWs and libs hate the repeal, they're soyboy cucks! (Insert soyjak pic here)
4. Owning the Big Brother censorship for Twitter, Facebook and Reddit as I got banned for spamming the word "nigger"
5. Some irrelevant unreliable obscure opinionated blogpost that explained why is it a good thing

I don't know, I think it's BASED to repeal Section 230, amirite fellow Kiwi users?

you're going to look very silly when Joe Biden makes a reasonable repeal for 230 that does not involve holding the national defense budget hostage.
heh, but at least us biden bros are wining, unlike those trumpcucks, right?

 

[José Mourinho]

you're going to look very silly when Joe Biden makes a reasonable repeal for 230 that does not involve holding the national defense budget hostage.
heh, but at least us biden bros are wining, unlike those trumpcucks, right?

wow what the fuck are you talking about, that's unbased and unredpilled and cucked, it's only based if Trump repeals it but if Biden repeals it it's cucked, you get it?

 

[KingCoelacanth]

wow what the fuck are you talking about, that's unbased and unredpilled and cucked, it's only based if Trump repeals it but if Biden repeals it it's cucked, you get it?

Very ironically you're making the exact same kind of posts sig was making up until he decided to "own the conservatards" by posting a shooting threat
stay safe, friend, be sure to think before posting.

 

[José Mourinho]

Very ironically you're making the exact same kind of posts sig was making up until he decided to "own the conservatards" by posting a shooting threat
stay safe, friend, fren be sure to think before posting.

ftfy

 

[6thRanger]

This thread has made me realize I care much more about the site than I thought. Even those years just lurking were a joy. This place has probably given me some of the biggest laughs I can remember. I'll miss it and truthfully all of you.

I hope repealing 230 doesn't happen, but as other users have said, the end is coming regardless. Thank you to all the effortposters, schizoposters, madposters and all the witty, funny folks on the site.

Good luck Null. You're somebody worth remembering. If you do go ghost, all the best. At least ensure your obituary gets posted so elderly autists can shitpost through their government watched neurolinks Kiwi-style one last time before they get banned IRL.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

It's really not a left vs right argument, it's expression vs suppression. I've seen plenty in the right-wing engage in similar behavior when they're in control. That's what this ultimately is all about, those who want to control the exchange of ideas vs those who want to open it up.

Yes but in real terms the freedom to call someone a "nigger" online does not apply to free speech. Free speech is done in a respectful way. You can say you hate President Trump all day you just cannot walk up and knock on his door and call him a Kike. Its aggressive behavior and is actual hate speech and beyond what is protected under freedom of speech.

Of course that applies to me as well. Is saying the word "nigger" something I do? All the time. Do I abuse the internet? Absolutely. To me the internet is made to be abused. To me the internet is the Wild West and if I don't act like a dirty whore slapping cowboy then I don't fit in. When in Rome do as a Roman.

But the time for the Wild West came to an end as will the internets time for the Wild West to come to an end. I use the word "nigger" not as an insult towards an actual black person but a a metaphor in a discussion, leverage towards a point, a crutch I can stand on and yet take and swing away if I want to.

Do I like freedom of speech? Yes. Am I entitled to use the word nigger to defend my freedom of speech? Absolutely not. Its hate speech. I use it to prove a point that if one person should be banned for saying it everyone should be banned for saying it regardless if they are a moderator and know the owner of the site.

The time has come for such hate speech and addressing of spergs to come to an end. Will repealing section 230 end kiwifarms and many other sites? Well I don't know only time will tell. I have nothing to do with it.

Will removing sites where I can go make horribly politically incorrect jokes affect me as well? Absolutely. It means I am cut off. Done. I have nowhere to go anymore and must now engage in polite respect discussion without using politically incorrect terms. I can say I do not believe a black man should be allowed to beat up my son, rape my wife and murder me all because his dad made him sell crack in the hood as a child. That is for sure. But I must say it in a respectful way engaging in the condition that I am participating in a discussion and not just being blatantly racist.

Now of course sites can ban people for acting in such a way. Sure. They should. But at the same time now with section 230 repealed it will just be easier for sites to get the shit sued out of them for not making it clear they will ban everyone fairly for acting in a derogatory manner and not just those they do not take a liking to. It means if a post continues to stay around calling out "niggers" then the site owners can be sued if those posts are not deleted immediately.

Its sort of the way it is now. Except just more vivid and concrete. More tangible.

Actually I doubt it. I doubt much will change. Sites are already supposed to adhere to those rules. It just somehow means lawsuits will be easier to target at sites themselves and not just users.

Not to trample on anyone's sand castle. But really castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.


✌ peace out

just as a reminder free speech in the US is not unlimited, these two come to mind:

1. can't give medical advice without a license
2. can't give legal advice without a license

as a reminder, section 230 (which Trump can't abolish by decree) of the CDA is not absolute (see below) and just besides this, just saying:

"the origin information for a Usenet posting can be completely obscured and unobtainable once it has propagated past the original server. Also unlike modern P2P services, the identity of the downloaders is hidden from view."

I mean one day if Moldova feels like shutting down archive.md it can.

"In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intelletual property claims (§230(e)(2))"

What constitutes giving someone medical advice without a license? Telling someone to take an aspirin if their head hurts? Or to apply pressure to a wound if its bleeding?

 

[NerdShamer]

What constitutes giving someone medical advice without a license? Telling someone to take an aspirin if their head hurts? Or to apply pressure to a wound if its bleeding?

Basically, it's more like running a brick & mortar store without getting the local permits and licenses for it...But if you're actually larping as a doctor, there's the added issue of being hit with a medical malpractice lawsuit.

 

[nya001]

What constitutes giving someone medical advice without a license? Telling someone to take an aspirin if their head hurts? Or to apply pressure to a wound if its bleeding?

1. ask the courts
2. yes. Actually "Aspirin" is a brand, the substance is acetylosalicylic acid. Can you differentiate between a tension headache and something more sinister? Do you know the absolute and relative contraindications of the substance and its dosage? can a small old lady take the same amount as a young man? can you take sertralin and Aspirin?
3. yes. Do you apply pressure to let's say a wound caused by a broken rib? and a bleeding artery? where? how long? all the time? how much pressure? with what? what do you do with a wound above the heart? do you press on it or will it cause blood to compress the heart and stop it?

idk but imho doctors know how to fix people, lawyers how to deal with the law and engineers e.g. how to build bridges

 

[NeckSleeve]

Yes but in real terms the freedom to call someone a "nigger" online does not apply to free speech. Free speech is done in a respectful way. You can say you hate President Trump all day you just cannot walk up and knock on his door and call him a Kike. Its aggressive behavior and is actual hate speech and beyond what is protected under freedom of speech.

Of course that applies to me as well. Is saying the word "nigger" something I do? All the time. Do I abuse the internet? Absolutely. To me the internet is made to be abused. To me the internet is the Wild West and if I don't act like a dirty whore slapping cowboy then I don't fit in. When in Rome do as a Roman.

But the time for the Wild West came to an end as will the internets time for the Wild West to come to an end. I use the word "nigger" not as an insult towards an actual black person but a a metaphor in a discussion, leverage towards a point, a crutch I can stand on and yet take and swing away if I want to.

Do I like freedom of speech? Yes. Am I entitled to use the word nigger to defend my freedom of speech? Absolutely not. Its hate speech. I use it to prove a point that if one person should be banned for saying it everyone should be banned for saying it regardless if they are a moderator and know the owner of the site.

The time has come for such hate speech and addressing of spergs to come to an end. Will repealing section 230 end kiwifarms and many other sites? Well I don't know only time will tell. I have nothing to do with it.

Will removing sites where I can go make horribly politically incorrect jokes affect me as well? Absolutely. It means I am cut off. Done. I have nowhere to go anymore and must now engage in polite respect discussion without using politically incorrect terms. I can say I do not believe a black man should be allowed to beat up my son, rape my wife and murder me all because his dad made him sell crack in the hood as a child. That is for sure. But I must say it in a respectful way engaging in the condition that I am participating in a discussion and not just being blatantly racist.

Now of course sites can ban people for acting in such a way. Sure. They should. But at the same time now with section 230 repealed it will just be easier for sites to get the shit sued out of them for not making it clear they will ban everyone fairly for acting in a derogatory manner and not just those they do not take a liking to. It means if a post continues to stay around calling out "niggers" then the site owners can be sued if those posts are not deleted immediately.

Its sort of the way it is now. Except just more vivid and concrete. More tangible.

Actually I doubt it. I doubt much will change. Sites are already supposed to adhere to those rules. It just somehow means lawsuits will be easier to target at sites themselves and not just users.

Not to trample on anyone's sand castle. But really castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.


✌ peace out

Is it annoying when people ask a hundred rhetoric questions, then answer those themselves? Absolutely. Does that mean that your definition of free speech trumps that of others' definition? Definitely not.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

1. ask the courts
2. yes. Actually "Aspirin" is a brand, the substance is acetylosalicylic acid. Can you differentiate between a tension headache and something more sinister? Do you know the absolute and relative contraindications of the substance and its dosage? can a small old lady take the same amount as a young man? can you take sertralin and Aspirin?
3. yes. Do you apply pressure to let's say a wound caused by a broken rib? and a bleeding artery? where? how long? all the time? how much pressure? with what? what do you do with a wound above the heart? do you press on it or will it cause blood to compress the heart and stop it?

idk but imho doctors know how to fix people, lawyers how to deal with the law and engineers e.g. how to build bridges

Is it annoying when people ask a hundred rhetoric questions, then answer those themselves? Absolutely. Does that mean that your definition of free speech trumps that of others' definition? Definitely not.

If an engineer knows how to build bridges and a lawyer knows how to deal with the law and a doctor knows how to fix people then

Then why would it matter what my definition of free speech is? These people are doing their job and the doctor is there to make sure aspirin is not administered for a headache caused by a severe concussion resulting in swelling of the brain and no one applies pressure to a wound too close to the heart or for internal bleeding so amateurs don't give advice.

Then why would my definition of free speech trump others? If lawyers do their job then the law is set and defined right? Yet legal conversations always become to interpreted. I guess the law in reality is whatever is decided in court or not. Regardless of what policy says. Regardless of the Constitution says. Regardless of what is signed and is on paper. Its just so

 

[NeckSleeve]

Then why would it matter what my definition of free speech is? These people are doing their job and the doctor is there to make sure aspirin is not administered for a headache caused by a severe concussion resulting in swelling of the brain and no one applies pressure to a wound too close to the heart or for internal bleeding so amateurs don't give advice.

You started your previous tirade by defining free speech ("free speech is done in a respectful way"), that is why I brought it up and that is why it matters. Nowhere does freedom of speech have an asterisk next to it regarding civility. There are numerous landmark cases that make this abundantly clear.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

You started your previous tirade by defining free speech ("free speech is done in a respectful way"), that is why I brought it up and that is why it matters. Nowhere does freedom of speech have an asterisk next to it regarding civility. There are numerous landmark cases that make this abundantly clear.

Tirade?

Ah, I see because freedom of speech does not have an asterisk next to it regarding civility it means laws regarding civility do not apply to it?

Without going on a tirade I should point out that this type of thinking and abuse of freedom of speech laws is probably what is leading to section 230 being repealed.

This sort of argument is similar to what comes up with people who fight for 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment guarantees that a person can own a rifle. There is no asterisk next to this amendment saying the gun cannot be taken away with other laws to prevent violence just so people can have civil liberties. Likewise the 1st amendment basically says "say whatever you want." It does not mean if you go around cussing people out they cannot come put the fucking cuffs on you. Likewise it does not mean they cannot shut down every website that ever existed because of civil liberty rights if Feds believe these sites intend to promote racial, hateful, violent acts.

What more could I say? I even included myself. My right to say what I want ends when I am deemed as giving myself the privilege to freely attack someone. Period. No asterisk is needed.

Likewise my right to own a gun ends when someone thinks I can use that gun to do whatever I want to anyone whenever I want. Honestly in many ways we are lucky to have the Constitution and have Amendments. That Constitution can be rewritten at any time. Those Amendments can be removed at any time. Not abusing civil privileges is something people should well heed to if they want to continue using civil privileges. I mean a person can be arrested at any time for jay walking. Oh fucking well. That is the law.