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
Kafferlord said:
Technically he could run servers in some remote island country like Norfolk or Tuvalu.
Click to expand...

He's not going to bother. Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity. At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.

How clearly does he have to explain this? Because he's done it lots of fucking times.
 
The legal liability aspect of repealing 230 won’t just hurt KF. It’ll hurt every dissident political site as well: the ADL and SPLC are some of the most vexatious litigants out there. Roberta Kaplan-types will have a field day. Ironic some alt-right Trump ballwashers cheer this on when it’ll lead to their few platforms getting BTFO.
 
AnOminous said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
This is what I want to believe as well, I doubt this poo have any say on the interpretation of the law.
 
Solid Hyrax said:
This is what I want to believe as well, I doubt this poo have any say on the interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this is a good development at all. I'm just saying this specific FCC action doesn't have much direct relevance. Anything that directs continued attention at § 230 is bad for the world and Internet free speech in general because it just guarantees Congress doing something incredibly stupid the instant it gets its shit together enough to try.
 
AnOminous said:
Anything that directs continued attention at § 230 is bad for the world and Internet free speech in general because it just guarantees Congress doing something incredibly stupid the instant it gets its shit together enough to try.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is true and generalizable. I also look at virtually any legislative initiative in this way.

If you aren't sure what Congress will do on a contentious political issue, it's safe to first remove all the good options from the list of possible outcomes.

And, hell, this isn't even limited to "Congress" because apparently it's nowadays cool for the Supreme Court to simply "discover" new laws or for the president to rule by "pen and phone" diktat.
 
malt ipecac said:
If you aren't sure what Congress will do on a contentious political issue, it's safe to first remove all the good options from the list of possible outcomes.
Click to expand...
Nobody seems to realize this though. You would be more likely to get good results from casting yarrow stalks and consulting the I Ching or rolling dice than on what the absolute morons in Congress will do.
 
AnOminous said:
Nobody seems to realize this though. You would be more likely to get good results from casting yarrow stalks and consulting the I Ching
Click to expand...
That's funny. I had never heard of the I Ching so I had to look that up.

I prefer to think of "obstructionism!!!!!!!" as "salutary inaction".

edit - I tried to give you the grin sticker but I do not have permission, so you just get the thumb.
 
AnOminous said:
He's not going to bother. Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity. At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.

How clearly does he have to explain this? Because he's done it lots of fucking times.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help that some of the injunctions he's gotten aren't just US-based. Kiwi is basically a worldwide threat at this point. Just because he's got his servers outside the US doesn't mean it won't stop some other country from targeting him or the site next.

At that point, who wouldn't want to just call it quits?

Terrorist said:
The legal liability aspect of repealing 230 won’t just hurt KF. It’ll hurt every dissident political site as well: the ADL and SPLC are some of the most vexatious litigants out there. Roberta Kaplan-types will have a field day. Ironic some alt-right Trump ballwashers cheer this on when it’ll lead to their few platforms getting BTFO.
Click to expand...
What else do you expect from shortsighted idiocy?
 
AnOminous said:
He's not going to bother. Even as an absolutely insane person, who has been willing to ruin his entire life up until this point, his level of bullshit is exceeded at the point he doesn't have § 230 immunity. At that point, he says fuck this shit I'm doing something else.

How clearly does he have to explain this? Because he's done it lots of fucking times.
Click to expand...
There are tons of places that allow you to form an LLC, ignore foreign judgements, and have favorable precedent or statute for Internet stuff.
Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?
Jewelsmakerguy said:
Doesn't help that some of the injunctions he's gotten aren't just US-based. Kiwi is basically a worldwide threat at this point. Just because he's got his servers outside the US doesn't mean it won't stop some other country from targeting him or the site next.

At that point, who wouldn't want to just call it quits?
Click to expand...
Do you really think countries will target someone over civil bullshit? New Zealand might, because that's actually criminal, but they're not very powerful. It's not like anybody is going to send hitmen over to enforce a default judgement for slander.
 
hundredpercent said:
There are tons of places that allow you to form an LLC, ignore foreign judgements, and have favorable precedent or statute for Internet stuff.
Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?
Click to expand...
At this point, I'm officially declaring you "too stubborn to debate". You're essentially just repeating the same claim -- "it's super quick & easy to just move your website host to a foreign country! Why are you tards so worried about a change in American law?"

I don't think you're carefully reading the responses you receive.
 
Gab appealing to Trump to keep section 230 intact today: https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230/

So they are OK with that huge list of ways they are being fucked over? Something isn't right if you've been raped repeatedly and locked in the basement, and your biggest wish is for things to stay the same.

I'm not a gab user maybe I'm missing something? Hope springs eternal I guess.
 
All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.
 
The fact that there are so many useful idiots egging on the destruction of the internet, over their inability to process a company's right to establishment, especially a neoliberal social media platform who's shares are primarily owned by the Saudis, baffles me to no end.

It seems to me that lolbertarian gubment minimalism is more of a disease than a cure, at this current stage of America.
 
Wasn't there supposed to be some traffic qualifier (minimum of x million users) before the Trump 230 changes go into affect, basically ruling out smaller places like the farms? Or is that not happening anymore? Or was that just fake and gay?

I'm all for 230 changes that fucks Twitter & Facebook but leaves the smaller guys alone.
 
Orange Man Costume said:
Wasn't there supposed to be some traffic qualifier (minimum of x million users) before the Trump 230 changes go into affect, basically ruling out smaller places like the farms? Or is that not happening anymore? Or was that just fake and gay?

I'm all for 230 changes that fucks Twitter & Facebook but leaves the smaller guys alone.
Click to expand...
I Believe that was UK & Austrial & European union :optimistic:
The US Rules was more mainstream because United Stated had controll of the Rains of Internet now, Moving towards censor restrict for the right people & information being held back or charged.
 
hundredpercent said:
Why would you need to worry about s230 in that case? Are you suggesting they'd sue Null personally?
Click to expand...
How could you think they wouldn't? Holy fuck there are like three active lolsuits against Null personally right now even with § 230.
 
malt ipecac said:
At this point, I'm officially declaring you "too stubborn to debate". You're essentially just repeating the same claim -- "it's super quick & easy to just move your website host to a foreign country! Why are you tards so worried about a change in American law?"

I don't think you're carefully reading the responses you receive.
Click to expand...
Logistically, it's not very hard. Moving a server is trivial, and so is redomiciling the legal entity. This is obvious, and everyone agrees. The real question is, would this be ineffectual?
AnOminous said:
How could you think they wouldn't? Holy fuck there are like three active lolsuits against Null personally right now even with § 230.
Click to expand...
Owners/members aren't liable for actions of their companies, as long as they run them properly. The lawsuits against Null personally are not dismissed on basis of s230, are they?
 
HumanHive said:
All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.
Click to expand...
This is nothing new here. Remember when Sulemani got killed and Null and a bunch of others lost their shit about how Drumpf betrayed us all to DA JOOZ and we were all going to get drafted to die in Iran? Good times back then, it's been a rough day occupying Isfahan.
 
HumanHive said:
All this doomposting is such utter bollocks. Sites like Twitter SHOULD have 230 protections stripped from them when they blatantly violate like this, otherwise 230 has no enforcement.
Click to expand...
Return of the Freaker said:
This is nothing new here. Remember when Sulemani got killed and Null and a bunch of others lost their shit about how Drumpf betrayed us all to DA JOOZ and we were all going to get drafted to die in Iran? Good times back then, it's been a rough day occupying Isfahan.
Click to expand...
So are you guys actually going to critque @Null 's argument that you should be targeting the Patriot Act's demands for payment processors to shut down people instead of touching 230, or are you all going to keep beating up that poor strawman you set up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom