Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring

[malt ipecac]

I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship.

My understanding is that this isn't the promise. Rather, each side claims that Facebook/Twitter should be responsible for publishing "misinformation" or something like that. So Republicans say "Facebook is profiting by promoting Democrat lies from CNN and silencing Fox News" while Democrats say "Facebook is profiting by promoting mask deniers and QAnon".

Anybody who seriously puts forward the argument that it would bring about a lightening of censorship is literally Terri Schiavo.

IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.

I'm pretty apathetic about "holding Twitter/Facebook accountable" or anything like that.

Like, yes, people often hold opinions you'd find unsavory. People are often stupid and gullible. But what the fuck does Facebook have to do with that?

If you're seriously getting online and allowing yourself to be seriously influenced by a Facebook page called "Woke Blacks" or sitting on Twitter waiting for the next QAnon drop, you're dumb as fuck whether you're online or not. Actual campaign-sponsored political ads are every bit as retarded as anything some "Russian troll operation" ever generated.

It's not like the one thing standing between these fucks and enlightened political reasoning is social media. It's just that they're out in the open for all of us to see instead of all cloistered in some Pentecostal church throwing live rattlesnakes at each other.

 

[hundredpercent]

Not a lawyer (as you're about to see), but I wonder if he would get caught out by the CLOUD act:

That's about U.S.-based technology companies.

I'm not sure how this interacts with Section 230 but the fact that he is the administrator of the site means that he's got to comply with warrants no matter where the site is physically hosted.

Yes, but those are issued by a court. This forum already complies with court orders and subpoenas, the problem is frivolous defamation suits.

That's an interesting idea of how respective countries' laws might apply to a global corporation, but you're mostly wrong.

A German citizen can sue Facebook in the US, sure. A country's court can do whatever the hell it wants. Hell, some court in Yemen just sentenced Donald Trump to the death penalty a couple weeks ago. But then comes the question: "What are you gonna do about it?"

If the US government won't agree to play along with the German (or Yemeni) court you used in your example, there isn't much the German government can do (this would actually be the EU, I think, but we'll put that aside). They could block Germans' access to Facebook, sure. They could stage an invasion of the US for the purpose of extraditing Mark Zuckerberg. But ultimately, it's the US law that matters to these companies.

Facebook has a German subsidiary. It has offices, assets, and employees there. Facebook has been sued in EU courts, and lost. A German citizen can sue Facebook in a German court. The EU routinely hands out fines to international megacorporations over GDPR stuff, which said companies pay.

Facebook doesn't ignore German law and spends large amounts of money complying with it. This means it already has the necessary infrastructure in place to comply with a repeal of Section 230, which means it wouldn't be a big deal for them.

You might have read about cases where a multinational corporation establishes an independent legal entity in a foreign country. A well-known example of this is Apple's business in the EU and the associated bullshit about how they use their Irish entity for "tax avoidance". Now, tax purposes are always a consideration, but another important reason for structuring a business this way is compliance with local laws. For example: due to a German law prohibiting holocaust denial, Facebook banned such posts from its platform in Germany several years ago (Facebook had not done this worldwide until very recently, and only due to political pressure, not outright legal prohibition). Twitter voluntarily blocks certain accounts in Turkey in exchange for the Turkish government allowing it to operate.

It's certainly easier to have a local subsidiary if you're doing business there, yes. German Holocaust denial laws only apply to content in the German language, but a German-American wouldn't have been able to do Holocaust denial in German, even in the good old days.

You know this is the whole reason we're talking about section 230 and why its repeal would be bad, right?

Yes. I'm just pointing out that the US' speech laws (extremely good, very strong) are irrelevant to a discussion about the US' safe harbor laws for Internet intermediaries (OK, reasonably strong)

When discussing the law, "speech" covers a broad scope of activities beyond an individual speaking or writing. When you hear somebody say "freedom of the press", they're still talking about "freedom of speech".

Freedom of the press doesn't apply to this site, since it isn't a publisher.

I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship. Getting rid of it outright isn’t going to make the moderation less restrictive, it’s just going to kill these sites entirely by rendering them inoperable, along with every other space on the internet where the average person can publicly post content. Even in the absolute “best” case scenario, it would just kill off anybody who wasn’t already a multi-billion dollar corporation who could afford a team of lawyers to defend themselves from the inevitable torrent of libel lawsuits. (In other words, pretty much anyone except Twitter and Facebook.)

Threatening to get rid of Section 230 protections is basically a combination of threatening nuclear annihilation, and the misguided belief that Twitter and Facebook are the only places discussion happens on the internet.

IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.

The purpose is to kill Facebook and Twitter, yes. If you can't spread your message on those sites, you basically can't spread it, which means you either have to force them to allow you on or kill them outright.

 

[malt ipecac]

Freedom of the press doesn't apply to this site, since it isn't a publisher.

Ok, I think I'm having a hard time understanding your view.

Which of the following would you say is a "publisher" in the eyes of today's US law?

• The Wall Street Journal
• Twitter
• Penguin Books
• Facebook
• CNN
• Reddit
• Kiwi Farms

Which of the following would you say would be a "publisher" in the eyes of US law with section 230 repealed?

• The Wall Street Journal
• Twitter
• Penguin Books
• Facebook
• CNN
• Reddit
• Kiwi Farms

When answering, keep in mind the following text, which I've copied directly from Section 230:

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.

 

[hundredpercent]

Ok, I think I'm having a hard time understanding your view.

Which of the following would you say is a "publisher" in the eyes of today's US law?

• The Wall Street Journal
• Twitter
• Penguin Books
• Facebook
• CNN
• Reddit
• Kiwi Farms

WSJ, Penguin Books, and CNN.

Which of the following would you say would be a "publisher" in the eyes of US law with section 230 repealed?

• The Wall Street Journal
• Twitter
• Penguin Books
• Facebook
• CNN
• Reddit
• Kiwi Farms

All of them. In that case, they'd have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Lawsuits are expensive. Even if Null won one, he'd be bled dry of money. Without money, he can't run this site. Servers and hardware for them are not free.

 

[hundredpercent]

Lawsuits are expensive. Even if Null won one, he'd be bled dry of money. Without money, he can't run this site. Servers and hardware for them are not free.

That's only the case in the USA. Virtually all other jurisdictions have the English rule, where the loser of the case pays both parties' expenses.
Furthermore, some jurisdictions require you to post a performance bond of $25k or so before filing anything. That would weed out most lolcow litigants.

 

[fartsnstuf]

*sees Ajit Pai getting right back into the mix*

welp, shit

 

[Sperghetti]

My understanding is that this isn't the promise. Rather, each side claims that Facebook/Twitter should be responsible for publishing "misinformation" or something like that. So Republicans say "Facebook is profiting by promoting Democrat lies from CNN and silencing Fox News" while Democrats say "Facebook is profiting by promoting mask deniers and QAnon".

Anybody who seriously puts forward the argument that it would bring about a lightening of censorship is literally Terri Schiavo.



I'm pretty apathetic about "holding Twitter/Facebook accountable" or anything like that.

Like, yes, people often hold opinions you'd find unsavory. People are often stupid and gullible. But what the fuck does Facebook have to do with that?

If you're seriously getting online and allowing yourself to be seriously influenced by a Facebook page called "Woke Blacks" or sitting on Twitter waiting for the next QAnon drop, you're dumb as fuck whether you're online or not. Actual campaign-sponsored political ads are every bit as retarded as anything some "Russian troll operation" ever generated.

It's not like the one thing standing between these fucks and enlightened political reasoning is social media. It's just that they're out in the open for all of us to see instead of all cloistered in some Pentecostal church throwing live rattlesnakes at each other.

I meant that more as the people who believe these sites are censoring them and want to see them punished. Removing Section 230 is going to solve that in the same way that burning your house down is going to solve a termite problem. If legal action were to be taken, I think the best route to go would be proving that these sites are violating existing rules, not throwing the protections out for everyone.

The people that argue that Twitter/Facebook should be held accountable for user posts is a whole different can of worms. I’d say the “Twitter needs to be punished for censoring me” crowd doesn’t understand that there are internet communities outside of major social media sites, while the “Twitter needs to be held accountable for content” crowd doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between Twitter and a newspaper.

But I agree, social media isn’t leading people to believe stuff they wouldn’t believe otherwise. It's just making it obvious just how many people are willing to believe crazy, extreme things (even people that you otherwise like and respect), and I don't think a lot of people can, or want to, accept that.

 

[malt ipecac]

I posted that last bit as an edit to my post, my bad. Got too excited with the post button.

So in light of that:

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.

Are we in agreement that the revocation of Section 230 would make Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter into "publishers", meaning they would "have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy?"

That is why the repeal of Section 230 would be disastrous for a site like this one.

 

[hundredpercent]

I posted that last bit as an edit to my post, my bad. Got too excited with the post button.

So in light of that:

Are we in agreement that the revocation of Section 230 would make Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter into "publishers", meaning they would "have to rely on the First Amendment or move abroad, and it would be messy?"

Yes.

That is why the repeal of Section 230 would be disastrous for a site like this one.

Registering a company abroad and shipping a few servers overseas is hardly disastrous.

 

[Symalsa]

*sees Ajit Pai getting right back into the mix*

welp, shit

He has found a street with very little feces. He can’t ignore this

 

[malt ipecac]

Registering a company abroad and shipping a few servers overseas is hardly disastrous.

At this point, we've reached an empirical question. I don't agree with that statement, but if that's all it would take to get around a repeal of section 230, you'd be right.

 

[Symalsa]

Not sure why my phone double posted. Technically half-posted. How the fuck do you delete?

 

[Knojkamarangasan_#4]

Spoiler: Doomer rant

What I hope is that if it happens, normal people will notice just how fucked it will get and revolt. But I doubt it. Let's face it. The average person is content with having enough comfyness to eat, sleep, and fuck+something else. They just hear the standard talk "oh lets fight x

sound so good lets trigger the left". Most doesn't even care about stuff like free speech in the end. It's just a fancy word until it becomes an inconvinience to them. Though if anything, horrendous companies like fb and twitter caused this themselves by being totalitarian assholes but it won't hurt them in the long run. Yet more shit to ruin the fun place that is the internet so that every random person can post pics of their cats and other mundane shit.

Also regardless of the impact this is just one step until the internet becomes as pristine and clean as old
media. Remember, having people to whatever they want is dangerous, big people in power dont like that!

I will still stand my ground and hold on to the fact that boomers were the worst thing to ever happen to this planet. All the retarded qtards and bASEd mAgaPedes celebrating that "now we will finally be able to sue facebook" are beyond stupid.


TLR
Giving normies access to the internet was a mistake

 

[Symalsa]

Spoiler: Doomer rant

What I hope is that if it happens, normal people will notice just how fucked it will get and revolt. But I doubt it. Let's face it. The average person is content with having enough comfyness to eat, sleep, and fuck+something else. They just hear the standard talk "oh lets fight x

sound so good lets trigger the left". Most doesn't even care about stuff like free speech in the end. It's just a fancy word until it becomes an inconvinience to them. Though if anything, horrendous companies like fb and twitter caused this themselves by being totalitarian assholes but it won't hurt them in the long run. Yet more shit to ruin the fun place that is the internet so that every random person can post pics of their cats and other mundane shit.

Also regardless of the impact this is just one step until the internet becomes as pristine and clean as old
media. Remember, having people to whatever they want is dangerous, big people in power dont like that!

I will still stand my ground and hold on to the fact that boomers were the worst thing to ever happen to this planet. All the retarded qtards and bASEd mAgaPedes celebrating that "now we will finally be able to sue facebook" are beyond stupid.


TLR
Giving normies access to the internet was a mistake

It’s almost poetic. Boomers destroyed everything else. They weren’t going to leave this earth without killing this too

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

The reason why Trump and Biden want to remove Section 230 is because of Facebook and Twitter. The only difference is why they want to- Trump is doing this over petty reasons as twitter removing his tweets and Facebook doing the same with his posts over there, claiming they're censoring him. While Biden and the DNC are doing so to lead a misguided attempt to curb cyber bullying and appeal to advertisers.

It's a losing scenario for anyone who uses the internet because that means the government and the websites themselves can take more control of the internet and effectively ban anyone they don't like from the US or elsewhere from it. The average joe doesn't want that to happen, so that's why many are against this happening. Null doesn't want this to happen because of all the lawsuits that'd come from it since the section also protects Kiwi from any severe punishments. And it doesn't help that it could easily set precedents with other countries if it does come to pass since most of the internet is either based in the US or have servers in the US.

Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues? And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.

 

[hundredpercent]

Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues?

The important questions are where the servers are based, where the company operating the website is registered, and where the intellectual property (brand, domain name) is held.

There's many countries that have laxer laws on hosting. Most of South America, parts of the Middle East (Lebanon, and I think Israel and Algeria), and some countries in Asia (Singapore).

And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.

The EU assigns liability under the E-commere on a notice basis, like the US does with the DMCA, but with all content. What you want is a place like Chile or Singapore, where you are never liable but have to comply with orders from administrative bodies or courts.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

I hate Ajit Pai with all of my hate.

Boomers are dumb, ignorant, self-serving fucks, but they'll at least pretend to pull this shit for "the greater good". Ajit Pai is just a cocky, malicious, and sadistic shithead who doesn't even try to hide that he's a smug snake in the grass.

 

[AnOminous]

You know, I’m not even sure how far a new rule would go with them. Like how much power could it have? They can’t invalidate a law. But they sure as hell can influence how it’s handled.

The FCC isn't a court, and it certainly isn't an appeal court, but it could certainly decide how § 230 applies to its own regulatory actions, which are subject to the law. A doctrine called Chevron deference, based on the case of the same name, means that courts, when addressing such legal interpretations by agencies with responsibility for enacting such laws, generally defer to the administrative agency.

However, the FCC has no real authority to decide what happens when private parties sue each other. That is entirely court-created doctrine that the FCC has nothing to do with. They are very unlikely to defer to the FCC's general opinion about something that doesn't concern them. Especially from a smarmy street shitting piece of garbage like Ajit Pai.

Does Ajit have any real power to actually force his interpretation of Section 230? Don't any change to the law need to come from Congress?

Not really. Only in the context of FCC regulatory actions, and even there, rulemaking is subject to public comment and other processes, and formalities have to be adhered to. As much as I detest that motherfucker, I don't think FCC regulatory actions are a huge threat to the Farms specifically. What we have to worry about is private civil liability. The government does not give a single fuck about us.

 

[Poxy Fuckwit]

The reason why Trump and Biden want to remove Section 230 is because of Facebook and Twitter. The only difference is why they want to- Trump is doing this over petty reasons as twitter removing his tweets and Facebook doing the same with his posts over there, claiming they're censoring him. While Biden and the DNC are doing so to lead a misguided attempt to curb cyber bullying and appeal to advertisers.

It's a losing scenario for anyone who uses the internet because that means the government and the websites themselves can take more control of the internet and effectively ban anyone they don't like from the US or elsewhere from it. The average joe doesn't want that to happen, so that's why many are against this happening. Null doesn't want this to happen because of all the lawsuits that'd come from it since the section also protects Kiwi from any severe punishments. And it doesn't help that it could easily set precedents with other countries if it does come to pass since most of the internet is either based in the US or have servers in the US.

Of course the question of why Null doesn't host the servers overseas does raise a few questions, but there's not many options. The UK's just as bad, if not worse, than the US when it comes to internet censorship stupidity, and I don't remember all that well, but wasn't Kiwi based out of the Philippines for a time and the servers had to move out because of issues? And I think the EU would be out of the question too thanks to the whole thing with Article 13 a few years back.

Technically he could run servers in some remote island country like Norfolk or Tuvalu.