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
It's :optimistic:-tier shit but I honestly believe this is just a big fat fucking nothing burger, just like everything else they were trying to pass. Only difference is it most likely won't pass anyway cause Trump's name is backing it.
 
these same (((people))) sunk the titanic, killed Abe Lincoln and JFK and who knows what else over it. It's (((their))) system and ((their))) laws and if you can't even get a job coding hentai
 
thismanlies said:
Unpopular opinion: It looks like Trump is trying to get some kind of concession out of the big tech companies by threatening Section 230. Maybe he wants them to quit censoring him and his supporters, I don't know. I just know that all he's stupidly shooting himself in the foot by threatening 230. The boomers with Facebook pages might be cheering him on, but the websites who made the memes the Facebook boomers are spreading will no doubt get hurt as a result of this.
Click to expand...
I hope this is just another bout of misguided saber-rattling. But considering how Twitter and Facebook aren't exactly helping their cases by censoring his posts while letting worse ones about death, sex and other shit that should be bannable offenses like doommongering and spamming stay up. He's not going to let this go until he scorches the digital landscape and everyone in it, even if it means his own accounts are affected too because he has no idea how this stuff works.

Cuddly Pirate said:
It's :optimistic:-tier shit but I honestly believe this is just a big fat fucking nothing burger, just like everything else they were trying to pass. Only difference is it most likely won't pass anyway cause Trump's name is backing it.
Click to expand...
This isn't just Trump who wants to do this. Biden does too, and so do many other members in the senate. Trump or no Trump, they're going to want to get this thing passed. And that's reason enough to worry, We've already had to deal with the MPAA and the FCC trying to fuck the internet over with their proposed bills, and now we got to deal with the advertisers and butthurt site owners who also want to harm the internet for their own gains. This is literally just the same shit, different story, the only difference is that they very well could succeed this time and there'd be nothing anyone could do to stop it. And like I said before, other countries who haven't followed Europe or China's practices could easily be inspired by what the US is doing and adopt their own takes on internet censorship.
 
Null said:
The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.

View attachment 1645001
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.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit drunk so I'm going to comment even though I should keep my mouth shut and read since I don't know what I'm talking about
But this amendment sounds good? Tulsi seems like she has a vendetta against facebook/twitter for manipulating what posts users see for the companies' profit from ads/engagement and political motivation. Null saying it "will realistically only result in more GDPR-essque notifications that help fucking nothing" does open my eyes a bit though... So how could this legislation be fixed? Maybe it doesn't need to be fixed, but you can't deny how much facebook and twitter are influencing politics by what posts the make users see, so I think it does
 
Null said:
The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.

View attachment 1645001
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.
Click to expand...
This man is high as fuck on rona treatments and shooting off a billion different things on twitter all at once, every hour on the hour.
It's pathetic as fuck that the sitting president of the United States would even need to get into this kind of gay legislative war with a site like Twitter.
Troonos said:
I'd agree with you, but 99% the site's users are retarded zealots who believe Trump is without fault, and I don't feel like spending my day off arguing with faggots.
Click to expand...
Summerfag/corona-time newfags were the worst thing to happen to this site.
 
I feel as if I should be more anxious and worried about this but strangely....I'm not. Call me an idiot for saying this, but I'm sort of used to people trying to wrestle over shit for political gain and in the end it usually ends up like this for them quick.

148.jpg
 
I really wish Trump would just drop this altogether and concern himself with bigger problems than Twatter fucking with him, but that would mean he'd have to sort out some imminent threat that couldn't be ignored. China, maybe?
 
Null said:
The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.

View attachment 1645001
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah null you figured it out, its all his fault 😂 😂 😂
 
Strong Tranni Role Model said:
Yeah null you figured it out, its all his fault 😂 😂 😂
Click to expand...
The president of the most powerful country in the world actively wants to shoot his country in the foot. It doesn't really matter whose fault it is, he's still loading ammo in the shotgun. He's a mad boomer who actively wants to ruin things he doesn't understand because he can't get his way
 
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
I really wish Trump would just drop this altogether and concern himself with bigger problems than Twatter fucking with him, but that would mean he'd have to sort out some imminent threat that couldn't be ignored. China, maybe?
Click to expand...
Twitter is life. Twitter is Trump. What are you, an idiot?
 
With all this going on with the internet in the last couple of years, I can only keep thinking of what happened to Usenet back in the day. Started off as a neat place for computer weirdos and general nerds to hang out, then came the influx of normies from colleges and elsewhere, due to the popularity the place tried and failed to become more corporate ISP-friendly after legal intervention and censorship. People just jumped ship to the Web in the end.

It's the life cycle of any wide-scale communication platform: begins as a platform with a high difficulty of entry or low popularity (or both) -> becomes more widely used -> begins to decline to cater to those who would object to certain freedoms of expression i.e. corporations and government -> gets abandoned for a new niche place with high difficulty/low popularity.

We'll just have to make our spergwatcher niche website elsewhere on a new network protocol, somewhere like IPFS, or Yggdrasil, or Zeronet or all these newfangled things popping up. The downside is that none of these options are either totally ready for widescale use, or not suited to the needs of this kind of website without a massive amount of specific coding experience. Even Tor isn't always an option if it's as pozzed as people say. Imaging Null having to learn a whole new way of coding the site after putting years of work into not making this place run like shit. It's a lot to ask.

tl;dr: someone needs to look into real, functioning alternatives to the web before it's too late and we just lose a bunch of cool shit to a corporate graveyard.
 
Null said:
The fat faggot retard has found enough time between shaking hands and swapping spit with every senior GOP official to tweet this out again.

View attachment 1645001
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.
Click to expand...
What a strange world we live in where reading the words "fat faggot retard" is heartwarming and comfy because on nearly every other site, that phrase would be censored for hate speech even if it's being applied to cheeto Hitler.

Let's hope the fat faggot retard realizes what he's doing before it's too late.
 
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...

Especially when Twitter has, in their TOS, rules against posting "false information". If the tweet is proven false, they can then remove it. It's not like they're deleting his tweets willy-nilly, they're deleting the ones with false claims.
 
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
Especially when Twitter has, in their TOS, rules against posting "false information". If the tweet is proven false, they can then remove it. It's not like they're deleting his tweets willy-nilly, they're deleting the ones with false claims.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to see what Twitter classifies as "true." Like a source link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom