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
For the KMT to keep China democratic, the first step of their master plan was having their shit pushed in all the way to a small, unassailable island. Genius.
Once they collapsed and retreated to Taiwan, the chance to take back china went out the window and their only 2 options became either "somehow pressure the CCP into making their island an independent state" or "have the CCP completely fucking slaughter all the KMT loyalists and/or sabotage Tawian." So far it looks like the second option is more likely.
 
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.

What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!

If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.
 
Is this still in "If they change it, I'll close down KF" territories?
Any changes to this amendment will eventually bring more. It starts slow, and turns into a snowball effect; getting larger and larger each time, until fat orange faggot man decides to push an actual repeal of Section 230
 
Any changes to this amendment will eventually bring more. It starts slow, and turns into a snowball effect; getting larger and larger each time, until fat orange faggot man decides to push an actual repeal of Section 230
Whether he is gone in a few months or a few years, Democrats have never missed an opportunity to clamp down on unpopular opinions. It won't really matter if he's gone or not, both candidates are in favor of repealing it.
 
Whether he is gone in a few months or a few years, Democrats have never missed an opportunity to clamp down on unpopular opinions. It won't really matter if he's gone or not, both candidates are in favor of repealing it.

It's a big club. You aren't in it, and if you have to ask it's like the thing with headlines, answer is no fam.
 
Repealing Section 230 should be viewed as bad, whether you are liberal or conservative. The snowball effect would be a nightmare for the internet as we have it today.

Even modifications to it should be very carefully done.
 
Why do the biggest, richest companies in the world deserve immunity for things that you or I could be sued for?
CDA currently protects all web services equally.

There is a rumor I am being sued by Greer for alleged actions of alleged forum users. CDA Section 230 will the reason this alleged lawsuit will be dismissed without having to prove anything.
 
What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!

If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.
The thing is that I like Trump as a president for the most part, I’ve said so on this forum, but that doesn’t absolve him from doing monumentally retarded shit on the daily. Especially where his ego is concerned.
Honestly I wish we had better choices than an Orange boomer with a massive ego and anti-gay Thor, VS dementia addled kiddy diddler, and a corrupt cop who fucked her way to the top.
Also I never really got the attributing a super intelligence to Trump when what he does is a pretty basic bait and switch on Liberals.
He takes one of their sacred cows, pulls it to the side makes vaguely threatening gestures toward it. Liberals then collectively shit themselves and rush to defend it. He then slips around back to fuck with something else entirely. By the time they realize he’s fucked with something else the news cycle is over and no one cares. It’s the most basic of short cons, it’s not hard to pull off or notice when someone is pulling it off. The problem is that liberals shot themselves in the foot by being bleeding hearts and trying to come off as “champions of the down trodden” it makes them easy to run a con on if you’re willing to be an asshole.
 
What’s hilarious about that mindset is that the same BASED ballwashers will insist him doing retarded shit is ackshually 1488D chess in the same breath. It can’t be both!

If you’re gonna base your worldview around wildly unrealistic Donald Trump fanfiction, just become a Q guy, because that sounds a lot more fun.

What I'd say that is he's both capable of plotting things and is also a 74 year old man with no real understanding of the internet. He's not literally retarded, just someone who grew up long before the internet and doesn't have a clue how it works, just like basically every senator. People from a past era often seem incredibly stupid when it comes to new technology. Others have said that Biden also wants to meddle with the internet if elected.
 
Ok I’ll admit I’m a borderline boomer on this shit, but having read over 230 it seems like a good thing to me and not the real problem. The problem seems to be that if I want to post wrongthink online I have to do it somewhere that allows it and those places are few and far between. This doesn’t seem to be because of 230 though, It’s more that funding these places is difficult Because of biased payment processors. Am I wrong?
Basically no one is talking about payment processors fucking people over. That is the big issue. That Facebook or Twitter will ban people but payment processors jump in to fuck over banned people when they try to start something new.

Obama has been a great disaster to America in more than one way as he set up the foundations for all this shit.
 
Basically no one is talking about payment processors fucking people over. That is the big issue. That Facebook or Twitter will ban people but payment processors jump in to fuck over banned people when they try to start something new.

Wait, you mean to tell me the Republican Party is just gonna let finance capital do whatever it wants? Because they care more about keeping their donors happy than my ability to poast honkler and 13 do 50? Who could have foreseen this, I feel so betrayed! Muh Tucker...muh Jersh Hawley...we wuz populists n shit...
 
Last edited:
CDA currently protects all web services equally.

There is a rumor I am being sued by Greer for alleged actions of alleged forum users. CDA Section 230 will the reason this alleged lawsuit will be dismissed without having to prove anything.
So under the new rules you'd have to show the clear, consistent moderation rules to still receive that protection.

You can't do that, because the moderation here is inconsistent purposely, which protects that malicious activity. You can't be a libel publisher and be a neutral platform at the same time.

If you'd just have clear, universal rules, you'd still be protected. But that might make it harder to successfully publish libel.

If you want to be a publisher and believe you aren't in fact publishing libel, you have to defend yourself in court like any other publisher.

Is kiwi farms a crowd sourced lolcow publication with editors? Why yes it is.

This site is no different from any random celebrity news rag, except you don't have any liability currently. You also have no revenue, but that's another matter (ad companies are the real monopoly).
 
So under the new rules you'd have to show the clear, consistent moderation rules to still receive that protection.
Which new rules? There's like 10 proposed sets. You have a fantastical concept of what this proposed amendment is, what might actually go through, and what it does. You're arguing a fantasy about a fantasy using logic that is unique to you. It is literally impossible to have this conversation because you haven't set what fanfiction universe this is set in and even if you tried my perception of this fictional universe is different from yours.
 

How Conservatives Plan to Censor Themselves​


It is not surprising in our cancel culture era that powerful politicians are waging a highly organized campaign to restructure social media companies in their own image, including imposing new restrictions on what can and cannot be posted online. The surprise is that in a national conversation dominated by Black Lives Matter and other social justice warriors, the most vociferous leaders of this movement to control private companies and online speech are conservatives.

On Thursday, the Republicans who control the Senate Commerce Committee subpoenaed the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Facebook to defend their legal immunity to manage content on their sites. Making Silicon Valley kingpins like Jack Dorsey (pictured above) sweat will no doubt give Republicans satisfaction. As a tactical matter, it may make sense to a vulnerable Senate majority to fire a shot across the bow of liberal companies just before an election. But the direction of travel, as the British like to say, is not good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
It's literally a ploy to make his enemies constantly underestimate him. It's not even really 4D chess either (at least not completely), it's just the way he acts naturally and how it contrasts with that of a typical politician makes him seem dumb, but you aren't a fucking idiot if you are a billionaire with a large chain of hotels that span the globe, household recognition for nearly 30 years and especially so if you get to the top of the New York real estate scene. People that say "Trump is an idiot" or "Trump is a baby" are basically falling right where he wants them. It's why the Dems lost in 2016 in the first place: the race would have been a LOT more difficult for Trump had he acted in such a way that would have warranted them being concerned about losing .That said, he still makes dumb decisions though and needs to stop with the boomer bullshit. He should just leave Section 230 alone and get on with more important shit that's happening IRL.
 
You have a fantastical concept of what this proposed amendment is, what might actually go through, and what it does.
If I'm understanding it correctly, the general consensus among conservatives is that big media platforms (primarily Twitter and Youtube) want to enjoy the privileges of an online platform while acting like a publisher, and not facing any of the liabilities that come with it. According to them, Trump destroying section 230 will force these companies to be regulated like publishers and that's totally worth destroying the rest of the internet because... reasons.
 
If I'm understanding it correctly, the general consensus among conservatives is that big media platforms (primarily Twitter and Youtube) want to enjoy the privileges of an online platform while acting like a publisher, and not facing any of the liabilities that come with it. According to them, Trump destroying section 230 will force these companies to be regulated like publishers and that's totally worth destroying the rest of the internet because... reasons.
No, what people want is to say whatever they want without being banned and (in many instances) they want to be able to make money doing it.

There is perhaps one part of 230 worth changing, and it wouldn't enable this. What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional. You will break everything trying to make this work the way you want it to.

Even if I completely and totally yielded this fucking imaginary point that it is somehow possible to torture Section 230 to force Twitter to allow things you specifically want it to*, remember that one of the primary problems we face right now is that wrong opinions cannot be monetized. Even if suddenly YouTube was a totally fair platform for ideas, it would not be forced to monetize people the same way. You would also need to pretend that this amendment to 230 also magically forces YouTube, etc to allow monetization equitably, and that is so much more complicated and beyond the scope of what Section 230 is supposed to be or do.

You'd have to propose significant bank reforms on top of tortuous Section 230 changes to achieve this fantasy, and then you've done nothing but damage and complicate Section 230 for the sake of bank reforms. If you're going to do that, you might as well just reform the fucking banks and allow free market competition with equal opportunity to send and receive money and just not break 230 along the way.


* There is a ZERO PERCENT CHANCE any free speech oriented changes to Section 230 which could successfully be signed into law would not specifically carve out shit like anti-semitism and hate speech. Our reality is one where in order to receive hurricane relief funds in Texas, you have to sign under penalty of perjury you do not boycott Israel.
 
Last edited:
No, what people want is to say whatever they want without being banned and (in many instances) they want to be able to make money doing it.

There is perhaps one part of 230 worth changing, and it wouldn't enable this. What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional. You will break everything trying to make this work the way you want it to.
I'd argue that the way it was already legislated is what is doomed to be nonfunctional. When they wrote section 230 they were talking about ISPs like aol and prodigy not being responsible for their users.

What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.

My fantasy version is at least as real as your fantasy version.
 
Back
Top Bottom