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
What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.
This is a lie. People said this about Net Neutrality and now since people think Net Neutrality being aborted won't have ill consequences because it didn't immediately split open the Earth, they are importing npc_dialog/political_advocacy/net_neutrality.txt as section_230.txt and that's a carry over. You literally have no clue what you're talking about or how it's going to affect you should you get what your handlers want for you.

You are begging for civil liability to make hosting a platform in the United States to be untenable for organizations not already cash-out-the-ass rich. If you want something else, you should find a new cause.
 
What you're asking for cannot be legislated in a way that is functional.
This isn't really what I'm asking for, it's just a general opinion I hear being thrown around. If anything I just want social media platforms to be actually unbiased and uneditorialized without some fat retard fucking over the rest of the internet out of childish revenge.

What's being proposed is deregulation, not new regulation.
If it has anything to do with removing section 230's protections against liability, it abso-fucking-lutely is regulation you tard. Again, even with the assumption that Twitter and Youtube are indeed being biased against certain demographics, it's not worth atom bombing the rest of the internet along with any possibility of establishing new platforms that could actually compete with the established ones we have now.
 
If The President wants his opposition to hate something, he'll say he loves it like money itself. If The President wants his opposition to work to change something, he'll say he hates it from the bottom of his dark soul.

What he could be starting here is a possible Joe Biden mousetrap. If Joe gets elected, he'll have a hard time touching 230 because it was a Trump position.

If Trump just wants to edit 230 (likely the real goal here) he'll start blasting on it, forcing the Democrats to defend it even though they also hate it in a way.
The ultimate goal is a compromise. If I had to guess, he's setting the stage to revamp the 230 provisions to prevent content moderators and providers such as Youtube or Twitter from arbitrarily blocking "hate speech" or whatever they else feel like because it disagrees with their politics or they think it promotes conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
If you want 230 repealed, know this: none of the people you think will be hurt by it will care one whit that it's gone and the internet will only be a shittier place for it.

They will care a little. There's 25 years of case law on the current version of the CDA. Even at the very best, changing even a word would mean 25 more years. That's costly even for the big boys. But they will survive it. The little guys and things that are marginally profitable go bye bye so they might consider the tradeoff worth it. Even if they don't they'll exploit the opportunity to drive their competitors and challengers out of existence.

What he could be starting here is a possible Joe Biden mousetrap. If Joe gets elected, he'll have a hard time touching 230 because it was a Trump position.

He won't though. Section 230 is inside pool shit for people familiar with free speech law. The average moron, even if his life is directly impacted by it, would give you a blank, sheeplike expression if you asked him his opinion of 230. He has no fucking clue what it is, like most normies have no fucking clue of the forces that affect their lives and are easily distracted by dumb side issues. Much culture war shit is in this category (although some is in the Trojan Horse category of shit used to sneak in something much worse).
 
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.
He wants Jack Dorsey to stop fucking with his tweets and he does not give a single fuck about you. He does not know what Section 230 does, he has no idea how to fix it, and he doesn't care. He just wants to tweet.
Trump himself may debatably be an old boomer out of touch with these newfangled computation machines, but the people around him are not. If he's saying something publicly, especially before an election, he's reaching for a (possibly distant) goal.

If I had to guess, his ultimate goal is a compromise. He's setting the stage to revamp the 230 provisions to prevent content moderators and providers such as Youtube or Twitter from arbitrarily blocking "hate speech" or whatever they else feel like because it disagrees with their politics or they think it promotes conspiracy theories. It may also have something to do with programs like TikTok that are basically just foreign spy programs.





47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​

prev | next
(a)FindingsThe Congressfinds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)
any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)
filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)
transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)
The key could be the term "Access software provider"
The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(It's also specifically written that any protections granted not apply to child porn or criminal activity)

He could be aiming to have this redefined in order to protect posted content from the access software provider itself, as long as it wants to maintain its own liability protections under 230. This could have the potential not to restrict sites like Kiwi Farms... but to turn Everything into Kiwi Farms.
 
Last edited:
If section 230 got super fucked (like worst case scenario) would we see some companies moving headquarters to countries with better protections?

There aren't better protections. Nowhere. I don't think people grasp how fucking lucky we are.

It's more we'd be forced to move to countries with much worse protections, where the only real "protection" is the country is an abject shithole with no functioning government or police so whatever laws they have don't even matter, then pay whatever bribes are necessary for them to look the other way and do favors for them regarding anyone on your service they don't like. So they may not care about people saying nigger, posting loli, or other degenerate shit, but anyone criticizing their corrupt regime is gone.
 
He wants Jack Dorsey to stop fucking with his tweets and he does not give a single fuck about you. He does not know what Section 230 does, he has no idea how to fix it, and he doesn't care. He just wants to tweet.
What I’m gathering from reading this thread and a few articles on the subject is that this whole thing started because of an egotistical slap fight between Trump and Jack Dorsey. My layman interpretation is that fucking with 230 would be akin to burning down every fast food chain because Starbucks won’t sell your brand of coffee. But you can’t build your own coffee shop because the banks don’t like your coffee either.
Also no politician is ever on your side, period. The best you can hope for is for their interests to line up with your interests and vote accordingly.
 
It's more we'd be forced to move to countries with much worse protections, where the only real "protection" is the country is an abject shithole with no functioning government or police so whatever laws they have don't even matter, then pay whatever bribes are necessary for them to look the other way and do favors for them regarding anyone on your service they don't like. So they may not care about people saying nigger, posting loli, or other degenerate shit, but anyone criticizing their corrupt regime is gone.
Russia, basically. You'd have to make a site hosted in Russia that blocks connections from any Russian IP and does not index to Yandex, and block yandex/mail.ru emails from registering. That'd be the best way to keep Rozkomnadzor out of your hair.

Of course, in post-230 US, Google would just be deindexing shit left and right so it's pointless, nevermind domain registrars, ICANN, etc, etc, etc,. Might as well just bite the bullet and go .onion. Maybe that's what people want, I don't know, but I'm not going to host that.
 
I just wish people would stop using platforms actively trying to censor them with clear internal political biases. Is that too much to ask?

My entire family constantly bitch about how shitty facebook is, regardless of them being leftist woketards or raging cuckservatives. And yet they all keep fucking using it!!!! They look at me being the crazy one for deleting that shit years ago. Am I taking crazy pills? No, it's the world that is clown.
 
This isn't really what I'm asking for, it's just a general opinion I hear being thrown around. If anything I just want social media platforms to be actually unbiased and uneditorialized without some fat retard fucking over the rest of the internet out of childish revenge.


If it has anything to do with removing section 230's protections against liability, it abso-fucking-lutely is regulation you tard. Again, even with the assumption that Twitter and Youtube are indeed being biased against certain demographics, it's not worth atom bombing the rest of the internet along with any possibility of establishing new platforms that could actually compete with the established ones we have now.
Removing pieces of laws or removing them entirely is deregulation. Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago.
Quick, what's a regulation?

A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."
So is the communications decency act a piece of legislation? Yes. Is it a law? Yes. Was it made in order to control the way something was done? Yes.

It is therefore a regulation. Removing it would therefore be deregulation.
 
Removing pieces of laws or removing them entirely is deregulation. Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago.
Quick, what's a regulation?

A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."
So is the communications decency act a piece of legislation? Yes. Is it a law? Yes. Was it made in order to control the way something was done? Yes.

It is therefore a regulation. Removing it would therefore be deregulation.
The first amendment is a regulation that prevents the government from arresting you and chopping off your arms and legs if you criticize them. Therefore, it's a regulation and removing it would be deregulation.
 
The first amendment is a regulation that prevents the government from arresting you and chopping off your arms and legs if you criticize them. Therefore, it's a regulation and removing it would be deregulation.
It's actually a constitutional amendment that is a regulation on the government. I don't want to deregulate the government.
Laws against monopolies are also regulations id like to keep.

Regardless, removal in full or in part of a regulation is by definition deregulation. That's a word definition, not a value judgement.
 
Trump himself may debatably be an old boomer out of touch with these newfangled computation machines, but the people around him are not. If he's saying something publicly, especially before an election, he's reaching for a (possibly distant) goal.
Or the fact that Trump has a tendency to just go off on his own and his people have trouble pulling him back from doing so.

The difference is that Trump has always led and done things his way. He was the boss, he surrounded himself with people that agreed and thought like him and he didn't tolerate any kind of back talk. For better or ill that was how he did business. Problem is you can't do that in government but Trump has continued to do so because that's who he is. It's not like he's playing 4D chess. He's literally just uninformed and doesn't have time to listen to any other view but his own.
 
This is a lie. People said this about Net Neutrality and now since people think Net Neutrality being aborted won't have ill consequences because it didn't immediately split open the Earth, they are importing npc_dialog/political_advocacy/net_neutrality.txt as section_230.txt and that's a carry over. You literally have no clue what you're talking about or how it's going to affect you should you get what your handlers want for you.

You are begging for civil liability to make hosting a platform in the United States to be untenable for organizations not already cash-out-the-ass rich. If you want something else, you should find a new cause.
Is it safe to say that the internet's completely fucked at this point, Null? Because politicians won't fix the real problem at hand without just destroying the infrastructure of the internet and thus fucking shit up to a massive degree.
 
A regulation is "a rule or law made by government or some other authority in order to control the way something is done."
"How something is done," not "who is liable for what". It is, by definition, in the literal definition of literal, not regulation. Regulation is when you start trying to force platforms to moderate in certain ways, or not at all. Then you are regulating those platforms. You are not protesting regulation, you are protesting a bill regarding liabilities which acts independently of how "something is done". You are not as smart as you think you are. It's perfectly reasonable not to be educated in what this particular legislation does, but it is unreasonable to think you are.
 
I'm almost certinely not the first person to ask this autistic question but how would repealing section 230 affect sites like Kiwi Farms? If a big company wants to take this site down they'll do it with zero effort using their batteries of lawyers and massive political power through lobbying, they don't need section 230.
This really leave various lolsuits by private people who always fuck up their own cases through incompetency and thinking they are smarter than anyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom