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
Nate Triggerpoofer said:
The redline does state:



Other than that, there isn't much mention of cyberstalking at all.

IANAL but there really isn't much of anything that affects the farms at all. The redline is primarily about moderating speech to the letter of its TOS, rather than the user-prosted publicly available information which is all the farms does.
Click to expand...
No, this is pretty much an instant kill for the farms. Even if the site *technically* does meet the new, stricter criteria (which is a long shot), the bigger problem is that this is now something that has to be argued in court.

Today: Idiots sue Null for the content on the farms. Null wins without a court appearance because he isn't liable for user-posted content provided he follows some simple rules he clearly does.

Tomorrow: Idiots sue Null for the content on the farms. He takes the site down immediately while the lawsuit is pending. Thanks to a wildly successful Patreon, he raises millions of dollars and hires excellent lawyers. The plaintiff argues that the site promotes self harm and violent extremism. Null's lawyers are able to argue that all the "kill yourself" and "gas the jews" is ironic and not actually violent extremism, and he wins the lawsuit. Everybody stands up and claps. His lawyers collect their huge fees, and the site has been down for years while the litigation was ongoing. When he puts it back up, all the users have moved on.

Even my wildly unrealistic "here's how Bernie can still win" fanfic is a "lose" condition. Now imagine how it would actually go. Hell, Facebook has declared Rittenhouse a mass shooter and much of Twitter thinks he's a white supremacist. This reform can and will be used to silence normie Tucker talking points, let alone the shit that gets posted here.

It has been an honor and a privilege sperging with you frens.
 
Last edited:
Sperghetti said:
If this happens, it will establish a cycle:

1. tech literate establish some kind of difficult-to-access method to connect with each other
2. fun Wild West era begins
3. system grows in popularity
4. somebody makes it accessible for normies for profit
5. Eternal September event, normies take over
6. system gets nerfed to benefit corporate entities at the expense of individuals
7. repeat from Step 1
Click to expand...
Well if this new system is more secure than the old one then it would be very hard to regulate and the cycle could be broken that way. I imagine a libertarian internet would have built in encryption or something so that governent spying would be hard.
ChikN10der said:
Why should websites get special exceptions to the law nobody else does? Why not just extend it to all companies. Nobody is responsible for anything they say.

Is there a reason to have slander and libel laws? Should unaccountable giant corporations just be allowed to lie about whoever they don't like and ruin their reputation without penalty?
Click to expand...
The penalty is being called a retard and debunked. Which we cannot do if section 230 is deleted and sites like this one are sued to death. BTW you are a retard and your argument is debunked.
 
The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.

1602004887815.png

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760

There's yet another Section 230 amendment that was proposed in the House as a bipartisan effort between Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI-02) and Paul Gossar (R, AZ-04) called the Don't Touch Me Act. It offers similar changes to Section 230.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/pres...r-introduce-bill-prevent-unwanted-anti-social
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8515/all-info

Supposedly this one is meant to only remove Section 230 protections for services which use user data without their consent to offer content, but which will realistically only result in more GDPR-essque notifications that help fucking nothing.

If you don't know what Section 230 is or how it helped foster the Internet since before the towers fell, now's a good time to learn.


If you're wondering why there's suddenly 5 or 6 amendments in various stages of the congress and proposed by the FBI about Section 230, it's because of tweets like this. Everyone was treated the same, and the CDA was basically untouchable. Now it's very political, very partisan, and definitely will be changed. Everyone wants to get their own carve-outs and definitions in while the iron is hot.
 
Last edited:
Null said:
Tulsi Gabdard (D, HI-02)
Click to expand...
Surf Mommy no!

Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.
 
Dark Edea said:
What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?
Click to expand...
My Plan for the Banks
All they have to do to fix online censorship is fix payment networks. No "non-kosher" alternatives to Twitter or Facebook can exist when monetization is not possible. The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does.

This process is two fold:
1. Change parts of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act so banks are less liable for illegal activity done by Americans and their businesses, and
2. regulate the payment networks (MC, Visa, Amex, Diner's) so that they cannot kick Americans off their networks or blacklist them without actual fraud or court orders.

That's all it would take to wake up in a better world, but it will never happen. They'd shoot Matt Gaetz in the fucking head if he proposed something like this.
Click to expand...
 
Smug Cat said:
Surf Mommy no!

Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.
Click to expand...

Way back when they were so ignorant that when the experts told them no, leave this alone, it will make lots of money but if you boomers fuck with it, it won't, they listened to them. Now they're just as ignorant but think they know shit because they have a BoomerBook.

RomanesEuntDomus said:
Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?
Click to expand...

Anything has that possibility but like nool says, this would probably be more in "now you have another dumb consent disclaimer to click on NormieBook" territory.

Dark Edea said:
What would an acceptable change to 230 look like?
Click to expand...

Putting it directly in the Constitution.
 
People that say this repeal 230 shit won't have negative consequences must be turning an eye to the fact that the suits working for mega corps and seedy agencies take everything they can get plus more when it comes to fucking over and quashing the freedoms of the internet.
 
Seems like the thing to do is only make section 230 reforms apply to major providers that both monopolize the commons and blatantly editorialize.
 
AnAccount said:
People that say this repeal 230 shit won't have negative consequences must be turning an eye to the fact that the suits working for mega corps and seedy agencies take everything they can get plus more when it comes to fucking over and quashing the freedoms of the internet.
Click to expand...
They're just saying it won't have negative consequences because they are being tribalistic and don't want to say Trump is doing something wrong here.
 
Smug Cat said:
Surf Mommy no!

Unironically though, it sucks that we don't seem to have any people in leadership who actually understand technology and the internet well enough to not be fucking retarded in trying to govern it.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, they really do see the internet like cable TV packages, don't they? Like, they don't realize the internet doesn't work the same way as TV stations vs. pirate broadcasters back in the analog days, and don't seem to know that Twitter isn't some colossal central hub of the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom