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
ScatmansWorld said:
Go ask some Chinese citizens how well nationalizing media was for them. By the way nothing happened on June 4th 1989.
Click to expand...
If Facebook was nationalized, the US government actually couldn't remove things from it because of the 1st amendment.

It would be insanely based, unlike China america has a constitution that protects its citizen's liberties. At least for now.
 
I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.
 
Found the text of the Gabbard-Gosard bill

LoC is slow as shit.

Edit:
Kennedy submitted a companion bill in the senate

Here are the other proposals
www.congress.gov

Text - H.R.7808 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop the Censorship Act of 2020

Text for H.R.7808 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stop the Censorship Act of 2020
www.congress.gov
www.congress.gov

Text - S.4062 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stopping Big Tech's Censorship Act

Text for S.4062 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Stopping Big Tech's Censorship Act
www.congress.gov
www.congress.gov

Text - S.4534 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act

Text for S.4534 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act
www.congress.gov
www.congress.gov

Text - H.R.8517 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protect Speech Act

Text for H.R.8517 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Protect Speech Act
www.congress.gov
 
Last edited:
Dante Alighieri said:
I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.
Click to expand...
183114841-fef6ffe6-0dd6-47f1-b430-8d3b75d2f6f8.jpg

You say that NOW. But if he actually follows through with it, you won't be able to freely praise Trump on this site.
 
The Last Stand said:
View attachment 1645171

You say that NOW. But if he actually follows through with it, you won't be able to freely praise Trump on this site.
Click to expand...
Trump can't do jack shit to 230. This is a stupid argument that's been rehashed a handful of times on the farms. If the content now already doesn't violate any law then the content isn't anything anybody is liable for, least of all Josh.
 
CatParty said:
He should just make his own site to say whatever he wants
Click to expand...
280.gov would kick ass

Dante Alighieri said:
I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.
Click to expand...
Except, as I predicted, Trump's tweets have led to more than 5 different proposals that are working their way through congress right now that will either make hosting a website more annoying or totally obliterate one of its most important protections for normal people. He is definitely causing this.

I see we're doing this "Trump is literally too retarded to do that" defense of Trump every time he threatens to do something profoundly retarded.
 
Now that I think about it, what was the point of the "Repeal 230!" threat, if it was at minimum expressly for Trump's personal gain? Its repeal ensures the death of any kind of non-advertisement speech, which necessarily includes his bizarro Fireside chats. Making a threat to get it repealed could rattle Big Tech, but how efficacious would it be when they realize that it hurts everyone, including every single politician?
 
How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people? Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?
 
Totally Awesome said:
How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people? Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is legal strongarming, not actually trying to address the issue. It is literally identical in temperment to Greer's lawsuit where he just says "this website says mean things about me, so it shouldn't be protected by CDA Section 230". Twitter deleted two of my tweets today, so revoke 230!
 
Zero Day Defense said:
Now that I think about it, what was the point of the "Repeal 230!" threat, if it was at minimum expressly for Trump's personal gain? Its repeal ensures the death of any kind of non-advertisement speech, which necessarily includes his bizarro Fireside chats. Making a threat to get it repealed could rattle Big Tech, but how efficacious would it be when they realize that it hurts everyone, including every single politician?
Click to expand...
My guess is that Trump thinks if he threatens something, it'll work in his favor. See North Korea or the Insurrection Act. That's the appeal of him.

Trump doesn't think when he speaks, he just DOES it.
 
The problem is not 230 protecting blah blah blah blah muh public square. The problem is that you have companies the likes of which the world has never seen colluding to control speech and to what information people have access.

Even if you blow up 230 you still cannot sue Twitter or FB or Alphabet. They will literally bury you in lawyers at best or at worst find out that you looked up something objectionable twenty years ago and leak it to their assets in the media. The true believers will stop at nothing, including your suicide, to make sure your name is eternally marked.

The internet we currently use is never going back to the way it was and people need to accept that and adapt.

Reworking 230 is whatever...I thought it might be an answer but really it is not and I really do not see any. What power does the government really have over Alphabet, Apple, FB, Twitter etc? Send the IRS after them? The IRS could not even beat Scientology.

The solution, if there is one at all, would be to start using a separate internet but that would be slow, limited, and eventually corrupted anyway and likely by the same players.

If you told me in the 1990's that leftist ideologues would be the cause of internet censorship I would have laughed myself to death...

Also you think mail in ballots are a problem? Wait until Google is handling your ballot...
 
Get ready for the inevitable anti-semitism exemption/amendment, unanimous bipartisan support of course. Prez Kushner already doesn’t believe speech critical of Israel should be protected (remember his executive order about muh BDS on college campuses?).
 
Last edited:
Zero Day Defense said:
I don't think you understand.

Even if he was in a medically induced coma, he'd still be tweeting.
Click to expand...
He's gonna use Elon Musk's brain thing to keep shitposting

"Just had a dream I was a giant and stomped Harris into the ground. I'm King Kong and you're a loser!"
 
Totally Awesome said:
How is repealing section 230 going to stop companies from censoring and banning people? Wouldn't it force companies to censor and ban people avoid getting in legal trouble?
Click to expand...
I think Trump just hates that Jack hid his Tweet and wants to scorched Earth the internet as revenge while also being ignorant that the internet exists beyond big tech.
 
Bland Crumbs said:
Even if you blow up 230 you still cannot sue Twitter or FB or Alphabet. They will literally bury you in lawyers at best or at worst find out that you looked up something objectionable twenty years ago and leak it to their assets in the media. The true believers will stop at nothing, including your suicide, to make sure your name is eternally marked.
Click to expand...
So Trump AND Big Tech will become literal dictators with this move. Monopolizing free expression online so to speak.
Jack Awful said:
I think Trump just hates that Jack hid his Tweet and wants to scorched Earth the internet as revenge while also being ignorant that the internet exists beyond big tech.
Click to expand...
Like I said, he got triggered.
 
Null said:
Tulsi's amendment is literally fucking worthless but it just goes to show I was right and any attempt to touch 230 is resulting in vultures coming out the woodworks to take their own shots at carving out shit.
Click to expand...

Hm. I know you're very protective of 230, but what do you make of the argument that Marsh v. Alabama ought to apply to sufficiently large platforms, as the digital equivalent of a "Company town"?
The difference between government censorship, and an oligopoly of 4 or 5 companies controlling the limits of public discourse, seems rather miniscule.
The internet is, for all intents and purposes, already a public utility.

It seems to me that such regulation could be implemented while leaving 230 intact. Right now, it just happens to be Trump's favourite cudgel to threaten Twitter with.
 
The Last Stand said:
Trump doesn't think when he speaks, he just DOES it.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed with this a few years ago, but I dunno now. He's either a decent strategic thinker or he has a natural 20 luck. I'm not saying he's got a good idea on 230, just he's not as reactionary as people think. Almost everyone in DC are retarded about the Internet because they're boomers.
 
Dante Alighieri said:
I see were doing the whole THE WORLD IS ENDING autistic shit fit every time Trump says something big and always turns out to do nothing or does the reasonable.
Click to expand...
Dante Alighieri said:
Trump can't do jack shit to 230. This is a stupid argument that's been rehashed a handful of times on the farms. If the content now already doesn't violate any law then the content isn't anything anybody is liable for, least of all Josh.
Click to expand...
Stop being libertarian.
7123C3D8-7E1B-4AFB-92B1-93A3EB5D5B50.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom