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
Found a clip from the future, depicted is Null the day after Section 230 gets repealed and he closes down the site.

Note: Could also be a clip of Null after he fails to claim Jury Nullification because someone else beat him to it, nobody in the future is 100% certain.
 
Kafferlord said:
Can we please establish a law that prevents anybody over the age of 70 from becoming president?
Click to expand...
I doubt it's one of those things dealing with their age, it's more so their mindset, you can be 100 and still think like a Zoomer.

Anyway I doubt the internet will be as 'free' as it is today in the coming years, no matter what their political stance is, or even their age, because every single candidate wants us to be compliant, no matter the circumstance.
 
Kafferlord said:

Apparently Biden wants it repealed as well, it seems no matter who wins the internet is fucked.

Can we please establish a law that prevents anybody over the age of 70 from becoming president?
Click to expand...
I think whoever mentioned it to trump is the real problem. Because trump latched on to “it would hurt Twitter”, to him Twitter is the only thing on the internet. Once he amplified it, it got all the other dumb boomers now focused on 230.
 
CatParty said:
I think whoever mentioned it to trump is the real problem. Because trump latched on to “it would hurt Twitter”, to him Twitter is the only thing on the internet. Once he amplified it, it got all the other dumb boomers now focused on 230.
Click to expand...
Either way it seems that no matter if Biden or Trump is elected, The future of Kiwi Farms is uncertain, as soon as that bill is repealed. Literally every cow mentioned on this site would have the legal right to take this site down. If Trump wins there’s a good chance he might just forget about it. But if Biden does, he said that if he became president, he’d repeal the bill the moment he entered office.

The internet as a whole will likely become just like the education system, where anybody who criticized the government or other people for doing stupid shit would be legally accountable for being sued. Only media that views America as the one true country will only be allowed. It seems the two party system as a whole was ultimately a mistake in the long run as both of them share the same opinions on most matters. It may sound far fetched, but considering America wants to create a firewall similar to China where only pro-government media is allowed, it doesn’t seem too unlikely.
 
Exterminate Leftists said:
These companies just keep giving Trump ammo to use against them, Facebook and Twitter have both prohibited linking to this NY Post article about Hunter Biden.
Archive
Always a couple bad actors to ruin it for everyone, except these bad eggs are worth over $800 billion.
Click to expand...
Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.
 
Exterminate Leftists said:
These companies just keep giving Trump ammo to use against them, Facebook and Twitter have both prohibited linking to this NY Post article about Hunter Biden.
Archive
Always a couple bad actors to ruin it for everyone, except these bad eggs are worth over $800 billion.
Click to expand...

What else is there to say?

why.jpg
 
Strange Wilderness said:
Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.
Click to expand...
The democrats and republicans in general don’t like the idea of americans not following mainstream news outlets to get information from as they view it as an attack on their country. I think that’s mainly the reason why both of them agree with gutting section 230, so they can place a regulation system similar to other countries that never criticizes anything the government does. Imagine the whole Iraq war fiasco, but never ending.

Like I said, this might sound unrealistic, but considering America at the moment heavily wants to compete with China in terms of nationalism. It wouldn’t be surprising if they start copying China’s economic and social planning to beat them. That includes regulating the internet to be as least free as possible.
 
Kafferlord said:
The democrats and republicans in general don’t like the idea of americans not following mainstream news outlets to get information from as they view it as an attack on their country. I think that’s mainly the reason why both of them agree with gutting section 230, so they can place a regulation system similar to other countries that never criticizes anything the government does. Imagine the whole Iraq war fiasco, but never ending.

Like I said, this might sound unrealistic, but considering America at the moment heavily wants to compete with China in terms of nationalism. It wouldn’t be surprising if they start copying China’s economic and social planning to beat them. That includes regulating the internet to be as least free as possible.
Click to expand...
America is already nationalist as fuck.

However the domestic vision of America for either party is a different story.
 
Strange Wilderness said:
Rate me optimistic but I don't think this going to kill Section 230 just yet. Yes Republicans in the Senate are hoping mad and ready to gut Section 230 just to get back at Big Tech censoring this story but the Democrats in the House have an interest in keeping Section 230 up and going for the next few weeks just so Twitter and Facebook can keep censoring these bombshell stories about Biden without fear of a lawsuit. Or I'm an idiot and Dems will still vote to get rid of Section 230 and all is doomed.
Click to expand...
The dems want to get rid of 230 too and replace it with something that allows them to force websites to take down "hate speech".
 
Jack Awful said:
The dems want to get rid of 230 too and replace it with something that allows them to force websites to take down "hate speech".
Click to expand...
I find the democrats reasoning to be more catty and elitist nanny statist compared to Trump, which is basically fuck you Jack and Zuckerberg.

Supreme Court has to be buffed up against this shit and having so many minorities really diluted the 1st amendment as many of these shit birds come from places that do not value it.
 
Why don't these companie like twitter and faceberg just back off and not censor so god damn much? I'm not saying let people just spam NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, but if someone's feefees get hurt tell them to turn off their computer or close the app on they phone.
 
Beavis said:
Why don't these companie like twitter and faceberg just back off and not censor so god damn much? I'm not saying let people just spam NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, but if someone's feefees get hurt tell them to turn off their computer or close the app on they phone.
Click to expand...
Advertisers and the government want a sanitized internet because it appeals to the most customers and is "in" right now, free thought threatens those in charge, and censorship because "hate speech is harmful" makes them seem compassionate.
 
The U.S. has Section 230. It insulates you from civil claims over user-generated content. People are suggesting repealing it would change things. Some people, like Null, suggest it would kill the Farms, and some people think it'd allow them to say the N-word on Twitter. Why?

Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it. If you want to sue them in the UK or Germany, it doesn't protect them. Repealing Section 230 won't hurt them, they'll just spend slightly more on Indians. You still won't be allowed to say the N-word, and "avoiding the moderator's dilemma" is an explicit goal when adding such legislation.

For smaller websites, there's many other jurisdictions that have nearly identical laws. Why do you have to host your stuff in the U.S.? The Internet isn't any better over there. If the U.S. were to repeal Section 230, couldn't all the imageboards just move their servers over to Chile and go on with their lives? It takes minutes to change what country you're hosted in, and colocation exists all over the world.

https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28933 said:
Article 85 Ñ. Service providers who, at the request of a user, store, by themselves or through third parties, data on their network or system, or who perform search services, linking and, or referring to an online site using information search tools , including hyperlinks and directories, will not be held responsible for the data stored or referred to on the condition that the provider:

a) Does not have effective knowledge of the illegal nature of the data;

b) Does not receive an economic benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in cases where it has the right and the capacity to control said activity;

c) Publicly designate a representative to receive the judicial notifications referred to in the final paragraph, in the manner determined by the regulations, and

d) Quickly remove or disable access to stored material in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraph.

It will be understood that the service provider has effective knowledge when a competent court of justice, in accordance with the procedure established in article 85 Q, has ordered the withdrawal of the data or the blocking of access to them and the service provider, being notified legally of said resolution, do not comply expeditiously with it.


Article 85 O. In order to enjoy the limitations of liability established in the preceding articles, service providers, in addition, must:

a) Having established general and public conditions, under which it may make use of the power to terminate the contracts of content providers judicially qualified as repeat offenders of the rights protected by this law.

b) Not to interfere in the technological measures for the protection and management of rights of protected works widely recognized and used lawfully.

c) Not having generated or selected the material or its recipients.

The providers of search services, linking or referring to an online site using information search tools are exempted from this obligation.


Article 85 P. The service providers referred to in the preceding articles will not have, for the purposes of this law, the obligation to supervise the data that they transmit, store or reference, nor the obligation to carry out active searches of facts or circumstances that indicate illegal activities.
Click to expand...

This is less strict than the DMCA. In the U.S., you need a notice from the copyright holder. In Chile, you actually need a full court order to take copyrighted material down.

I can't see how killing Section 230 will change anything, neither for better nor worse. Facebook will keep censoring, and imageboards will keep existing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom