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
Angry Shoes said:
Also most faggots proposing we get rid of 230 use super-popular normie sites anyways. They don't care about smaller sites like us.
Click to expand...

Which is why they'll destroy us without even thinking about it, because the consequences of their stupidity don't matter enough for them even to care about them at all. They'll just slap a minor regulatory cost on the big boys while killing the little boys outright.
 
Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?
Because that faggot Jack Dorsey sure makes it seem like he has been wanting it's decimation with all the selective deplatforming that has been going on, knowingly baiting the President.
 
Pissmaster said:
There's probably a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" joke in here, considering the problem comes down to monetization and oligopolies keeping even the possibility of serious competition locked out.
Click to expand...

If anyone involved thinks about sites like this at all we certainly would not be considered the baby or even the bathwater, but toxic sludge to be disposed of immediately.
 
AnOminous said:
Which is why they'll destroy us without even thinking about it, because the consequences of their stupidity don't matter enough for them even to care about them at all. They'll just slap a minor regulatory cost on the big boys while killing the little boys outright.
Click to expand...
It's quite funny how people praise Trump for speaking his mind freely, yet if he goes through with this, many small time Internet communities WON'T be able to speak their minds.

Only Trump is allowed to say what he wants. On Twitter: the social media site full of toxicity. It fits Trump well actually.
 
The Last Stand said:
I don't understand the end game Trump is going for.

It's THEIR site, they can do what they want with THEIR site. It's not always fair, but even the President needs to realize that he can't just say whatever, whenever he wants because people will interpret that as pure fact.

Does he understand how the Internet works? Or will he just throw a temper tantrum whenever he cannot say what he wants without consequence?
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that this all started because Twitter put a fucking naughty sticker on one of his Tweets. Twitter is shit but his reaction to the disclaimer that can easily be ignored was completely overblown and now we're stuck with the consequences forever.
 
"The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does."

This is genuinely something more people need to pay attention to. Mastercard is a BIG financial supporter of the GMOs currently importing rape-happy Muslims into the heart of Europe. Surely they aren't trying to hook those "new europeans" into the same ponzi scheme breaking native Whites.
 
An Avenging Bird said:
Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?
Click to expand...
Once Section 230 is removed, all existing platforms will have a choice: burden themselves with legal liability, or leave the country.

Many sites will just leave, but remember the individuals who own those sites who are American will still be liable, so to truly leave you'd also have to renounce your citizenship. Some people will do this, I probably won't, I just can't be asked to learn another country's laws and move again for the sake of this website.

The few sites sufficiently rich and powerful enough to mount a full legal team and a staff of 24/7 paid-for human moderation will become the kings of the country's media. If you think Facebook, Twitter, and Google are powerful now, wait until it is only them who can even afford to run an open forum on the Internet. What will likely happen is the US will start adopting firewalls to block access to services outside the country who don't accept liability or cooperate with the US courts and then a lot of those sites I mentioned before will just be fucked.
 
An Avenging Bird said:
Honest question: would it be a benefit or detriment to Twitter for 230 to be carved up and/or repealed?
Because that faggot Jack Dorsey sure makes it seem like he has been wanting it's decimation with all the selective deplatforming that has been going on, knowingly baiting the President.
Click to expand...
Dorsey would just trot out some kind of stronger AI moderation thing and make the report button 20 pixels bigger to appease the boomers in charge. Any tech giant could just technobabble their way out and hire even more third worlders to moderate for them for slave labor wages, like they already do.

edit: cucked by null
 
Chiri said:
Let's not forget that this all started because Twitter put a fucking naughty sticker on one of his Tweets. Twitter is shit but his reaction to the disclaimer that can easily be ignored was completely overblown and now we're stuck with the consequences forever.
Click to expand...
That disclaimer has triggered Trump. Now he's evoking ultimate cancel culture.
Null said:
Once Section 230 is removed, all existing platforms will have a choice: burden themselves with legal liability, or leave the country.
Click to expand...
The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?
 
The Last Stand said:
That disclaimer has triggered Trump. Now he's evoking ultimate cancel culture.

The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?
Click to expand...
he would be liable for defamation ect, and sued into obliteration instantly

Most people against '230' mostly just want to be able to say nigger on twitter.

Now, I hate Twitter and facebooks political censorship, but I don't know if section 230 is the way, I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that these places are the new public square, the street corner, the essential free speech tool and we can't just let corporations have control over everyone's speech.

Maybe we should just nationalize facebook that would be funny.
 
The Last Stand said:
The liability comes with the users of the platform? Like every post here would be your responsibility and you'd have to pay the government to keep your platform?
Click to expand...
Lolcow LLC would be legally liable for everything posted on the Kiwi Farms. If you committed defamation and posted it on the forum, my company could be treated as the speaker.

Section 230 has NOTHING TO DO with fucking with Trump's tweets, but it is very important to Twitter, so he is using it as leverage.
 
The Last Stand said:
Only Trump is allowed to say what he wants. On Twitter: the social media site full of toxicity. It fits Trump well actually.
Click to expand...

People who live their public life on Twitter are evil morons. No exceptions. None.

Sheryl Nome said:
he would be liable for defamation ect, and sued into obliteration instantly
Click to expand...


He's already personally liable, but you wouldn't go after him directly anyway. You'd just sue Twitter every time Trump said something you don't like, alleging that Twitter is vicariously liable for his statements because they allow him to make them. It would soon cost too much to host such a toxic person and they'd get rid of him. Finally they'd have the excuse they need!
 
Sheryl Nome said:
Most people against '230' mostly just want to be able to say nigger on twitter.
Click to expand...
So Twitter is censoring those posts, and the false equivalency is that Section 230 is responsible for that.

If saying "nigger" or whatever conspiracy theory on the Internet is that important to people, they seriously need their Internet privileges revoked or mocked to no end.
 
>Thinking the internet was going to stay the same when it's been a decades long crawl of governments and corporations destroying it.
>Thinking you've got any choice in the matter unless you own an ISP or multi-billion corporation.

Lol k.
 
AnOminous said:
He's already personally liable, but you wouldn't go after him directly anyway. You'd just sue Twitter every time Trump said something you don't like, alleging that Twitter is vicariously liable for his statements because they allow him to make them. It would soon cost too much to host such a toxic person and they'd get rid of him. Finally they'd have the excuse they need!
Click to expand...
By he I meant nool for posts on here, inartfully put I know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom