Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Why is this an issue for the Farms itself? im pretty sure that journalism is protected in other ways.
 
imagine josh, you having to babysit all the retards coming to your site and having to face multiple lawsuits because pedoposters on neinchan keep jacking off to children.
if 230 is revoked I wonder how fast the internet will die out because anyone who owns or wants to own a forum is literally writing themselves a death sentence.
 
TwinkLover6969 said:
Sorry @Null we need to repeal 230 to own the libs.

#Revoke230
Click to expand...
Fuck off mundanematt.

The worst part is it even fucks with non americans. Revoking 230 would fuck over global cimmunications on the net because a piss baby got his feelings hurt that a website doesn't like him. I'd get banned for quoting statistics at retards who don't know shit.
 
DJ Grelle said:
The internet is part of the public sphere and the government should enforce free speech to ensure a working democracy.
But in practice we all know its blackr0ck as 4th power of government that decides and if its no then its GG
If this is the end, then gentlemen youre all really exceptional, and I dont mean the r.tarded kind.
Click to expand...
I mean unless you were to support Trump at this point, in which case the second one applies.

Also you can say retard normally now. Just a head's up for next time (assuming there'll be one after Trump's pissing match with Twitter).
 
Last edited:
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?
Click to expand...
Write to your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Call them. Annoy the fuck out of them.
You (probably) voted them in. And even if you didn't, you pay them with your tax dollars. They answer to you, unless you don't speak up.
 
@Null, why not try something akin to this if Kiwifarms is taken off the clearnet?

zeronet.png
 
DJ Grelle said:
The internet is part of the public sphere and the government should enforce free speech to ensure a working democracy.
But in practice we all know its blackr0ck as 4th power of government that decides and if its no then its GG
If this is the end, then gentlemen youre all really exceptional, and I dont mean the r.tarded kind.
Click to expand...
Nah, the internet is, but sites like twitter and youtibe are "private services" even Kiwifarms is. I stand by my belief that if trump wants to make these fuckers sweat, he should find stuff like calls for violence and political violence and anything else not removed, then start using government orginizations, like the NSA, to strike at em. If they classify twitter a terrorist orginization, then banks can't work with twitter. It would fuck them up something bad.
 
PowerWomon said:
How does Europe manage? Don't they already have very similar laws?
Click to expand...
Responding because Dear Leader's response might be slightly missleading.

The EU has a directive, but it's only for hosting, caching and "mere relays".
en.wikipedia.org

Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Within the EU I know that Poland has a law that extends the protection to everyone who handles data without deleting or modifying it and everyone who stores data without knowing that the illegal data is illegal. https://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20021441204 (Chapter 3)

UK persecutes people for hosting illegal shit.

No idea about any other specific country/area.
 
Last edited:
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
The biggest concern is preventing the downfall of 230, obviously, so how do each of us do our own part regarding this matter?
Click to expand...

I don't know but I've heard that the best place to fire a mortar launcher at the white house would be from the roof of the Rockefeller Hewitt building.
 
No matter who you vote in. They all want orwellian censorship, sterilized and child friendly internet managed by ministry of truth.

Does anyone oppose this shit? EUs bullshit is bad enough.

Do people have to go back to private network and usenet bbs to get away from this shit?
 
Large said:
Responding because Dear Leader's response might be slightly missleading.

The EU has a directive, but it's only for hosting, caching and "mere relays".
en.wikipedia.org

Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

This isn't particularly good for anything other than those very specific things. Also, unlike Section 230, it has some repugnant aspects:

Article 21

Re-examination

1. Before 17 July 2003, and thereafter every two years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Directive, accompanied, where necessary, by proposals for adapting it to legal, technical and economic developments in the field of information society services, in particular with respect to crime prevention, the protection of minors, consumer protection and to the proper functioning of the internal market.

2. In examining the need for an adaptation of this Directive, the report shall in particular analyse the need for proposals concerning the liability of providers of hyperlinks and location tool services, "notice and take down" procedures and the attribution of liability following the taking down of content. The report shall also analyse the need for additional conditions for the exemption from liability, provided for in Articles 12 and 13, in the light of technical developments, and the possibility of applying the internal market principles to unsolicited commercial communications by electronic mail.
Click to expand...

Section 230 has nothing of this sort. The ISP can get notice of allegedly defamatory content and basically tell the sender to go get fucked with impunity.
 
Null said:
He is trying to 'clarify' the law so that deleting tweets and banning accounts is editorialization. Repealing the law in its entirety makes everyone personally, civilly liable for anything published on their platform.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this place be safe if the former happened? You don't edit or delete messages when you ban a user, everything that user said stays as it was, so there's no editorialising involved.

However, I guess we're in a spot of bother if the latter happens.
 
The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.
 
Null said:
The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna pretend to know anything about how US law works, but the President can't repeal a law on his own, right?
 
If worst came to pass would KF forced to migrate to Telegram altogether? (That scenario is one massive clusterfuck)
Too bad Europeans can't do jacks shit about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom