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

[HumanHive]

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?

Nobody is talking about the Patriot Act. Stop conflating topics.

 

[AnOminous]

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?

They would be if they ever got past the point of just literally dying out of pure retardation without even a response.

Arguing the theory of it is pointless anyway it's just a line nool has personally drawn, 230 goes away, so does he. None of my opinions or yours are going to change that.

 

[knobslobbin]

Cruz and Graham talking big, we'll see if it amounts to anything

 

[mr.moon1488]

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?

Payment processing is part of the problem, but addressing just that doesn't really do much to actually correct the issues of internet monopolies colluding to censor any form of wrong think. By the time things get down to the individual poster, there are a great many layers of monopolistic entities that can easily force layers wanting to allow for free discourse to bend the knee. This is also something which is only going to get worse too since as the (((entities))) wanting to gain more control over the internet do steadily gain more control over the internet, you will see a strong negative correlation with the amount of resistance which is directed towards these entities. This is because any evidence which could be brought to the forefront in order to criticize these monopolies will become increasingly more obscure and esoteric due to fewer and fewer people examining it due to it becoming more and more difficult to access.

 

[hundredpercent]

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?

With proper payment processing, you still won't have the virality of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter back in the good old days.
With uncensored social media but no payment processing, there will still be people making content for no financial gain.

 

[HonsPonzud]

Grubby Grubby corporate hands on every facet of the internet soon.

 

[Symalsa]

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?

He’s right though. And the payment processors isn’t his only solution.

Null’s final solution for a free internet also includes allowing carve-outs for certain scenarios. (ie allow deplatformed people to sue in civil court). And why not? For many there is a financial fallout for them personally. Let the courts decide if the expulsion was warranted, and if not, how much financial damage was done to the individual or entity affected.

 

[hundredpercent]

He’s right though. And the payment processors isn’t his only solution.

Null’s final solution for a free internet also includes allowing carve-outs for certain scenarios. (ie allow deplatformed people to sue in civil court). And why not? For many there is a financial fallout for them personally. Let the courts decide if the expulsion was warranted, and if not, how much financial damage was done to the individual or entity affected.

That's the Clarence Thomas plan. Section 230, as drafted, just says the following:
1) If you run a forum, the users take liability for their posts
2) If you run a forum and moderate it, the users still take liability for what they didn't post
But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
"Sites can't be sued for anything, ever, relating to moderation or even content they post"

There's nothing in s230 that strictly says you can't bring a claim for, say, product defects against Facebook. But the courts have interpreted it that way.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf

 

[AnOminous]

But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
"Sites can't be sued for anything, ever, relating to moderation or even content they post"

I'm totally okay with that interpretation. Other than the "content they post" thing. And Congress is a bunch of absolute morons enough I have absolutely zero trust in anything they have to say on the subject. If anything, I'd add something to 230 just making Congress liable for anything they or their supporters say and then every single one of us could constantly sue Congress any time they pissed us off with their dumb utterances.

 

[hundredpercent]

I'm totally okay with that interpretation. Other than the "content they post" thing. And Congress is a bunch of absolute morons enough I have absolutely zero trust in anything they have to say on the subject. If anything, I'd add something to 230 just making Congress liable for anything they or their supporters say and then every single one of us could constantly sue Congress any time they pissed us off with their dumb utterances.

The Clarence Thomas plan has a good chance of succeeding, without involving Congress.

 

[Symalsa]

That's the Clarence Thomas plan. Section 230, as drafted, just says the following:
1) If you run a forum, the users take liability for their posts
2) If you run a forum and moderate it, the users still take liability for what they didn't post
But the courts have interpreted it to mean something like:
"Sites can't be sued for anything, ever, relating to moderation or even content they post"

There's nothing in s230 that strictly says you can't bring a claim for, say, product defects against Facebook. But the courts have interpreted it that way.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf

Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.

and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to

 

[hundredpercent]

Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.

and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to

Courts did humor lawsuits against Twitter for being banned (see Taylor v. Twitter), but plaintiffs pulled out because it didn't look favorable to them. So it doesn't seem impossible, no.

Payment processors would help, but it wouldn't fix the Facebook problem. You need to get on the platforms, otherwise it's simply impossible.

 

[AnOminous]

Does the Thomas interpretation take into account being banned? I didn’t think it did.

and I do think payment processors, as a totally separate issue, would help all of this problem. Or at least have the potential to

I wouldn't mind at all a return to Usenet style, where the only bans you could do would be spam-related, and otherwise, platforms would have to act as common carriers and put up with absolutely everyone. Users, of course, could use their own filtering. (Also in case I was being too subtle I was actually saying CDMP dindu nuffin bring him back he reformin he life.)

But Congress is more stupid than you can possibly imagine and the only way sites like this exist is the sanity of courts and the weird prescience of some subcommunity in Congress who threw § 230 into something otherwise called the "Communications Decency Act" that was otherwise thrown out as completely unconstitutional.

Do not expect magic like that ever to happen again.

 

[Symalsa]

Courts did humor lawsuits against Twitter for being banned (see Taylor v. Twitter), but plaintiffs pulled out because it didn't look favorable to them. So it doesn't seem impossible, no.

Payment processors would help, but it wouldn't fix the Facebook problem. You need to get on the platforms, otherwise it's simply impossible.

Right. They pulled out because they would lose.

whats the Facebook problem?

 

[hundredpercent]

Right. They pulled out because they would lose.

whats the Facebook problem?

They pulled out because they were Jared Taylor, and because things were different back then. It's very possible someone more sympathetic could win.

Even if you get Gab working and well-funded, you'll only ever be able to talk to other conservatives there. You need access to mainstream platforms to get your message out. Having extremely well-functioning alt-tech wouldn't help this much.

 

[Symalsa]

They pulled out because they were Jared Taylor, and because things were different back then. It's very possible someone more sympathetic could win.

Even if you get Gab working and well-funded, you'll only ever be able to talk to other conservatives there. You need access to mainstream platforms to get your message out. Having extremely well-functioning alt-tech wouldn't help this much.

you’re right that a well-functioning Gab wouldn’t help.

But people don’t have a right to a spot on a platform. And they especially don’t have a right to have a spot on a platform to get their message out. That’s not applicable anywhere else.

ex: I own a private hall and - for arguments sake - I let the local union hold meetings there. And for arguments sake I allow them to do this because I agree with their message and goals. No one else has a right to use the space without my permission, especially if they’re espousing a message I don’t like. Of course it would help those others in getting the message out but I’m not forced to comply.

And it’s even more ridiculous for social media sites. Twitter claims to have 60 million US users. I think it’s lower. It seems to be about 48 million. How many are unique? 35 million? 40 million? The numbers aren’t all that important. But at what threshold does a company lose its property rights?

Does the same argument apply to my private hall? If 20% of the town has used it does that mean I can no longer decide who gets a platform there? On top of it all I’m now also legally liable for anything those people say or do while on the premises? It would be wiser for me to close it. After all, it’s not really mine at that point anyway.

 

[hundredpercent]

you’re right that a well-functioning Gab wouldn’t help.

But people don’t have a right to a spot on a platform. And they especially don’t have a right to have a spot on a platform to get their message out. That’s not applicable anywhere else.

ex: I own a private hall and - for arguments sake - I let the local union hold meetings there. And for arguments sake I allow them to do this because I agree with their message and goals. No one else has a right to use the space without my permission, especially if they’re espousing a message I don’t like. Of course it would help those others in getting the message out but I’m not forced to comply.

And it’s even more ridiculous for social media sites. Twitter claims to have 60 million US users. I think it’s lower. It seems to be about 48 million. How many are unique? 35 million? 40 million? The numbers aren’t all that important. But at what threshold does a company lose its property rights?

If you apply that principle consistently, freedom of speech becomes a total joke.
* Hey, the grocery store is a private business, they can deny anyone service!
* Hey, your landlord is a private business, they don't have to let you rent there!
* Hey, banks are private businesses, you have no right to get a loan from them!
* Hey, your employer is a private business, they're under no obligation to employ you!
You can apply this indefinitely. If you do, freedom of speech would become an entity that exists on paper only, like a Cayman Islands shell corporation. You would have the theoretical right, but the moment you exercised it you'd be unemployed, broke, homeless, and hungry.

As for your point about where to draw a line - this is just the sorites paradox. If I run a nightclub, it's totally acceptable to ethnically discriminate, or to tell ugly/fat guests to fuck off. If I run a restaurant, maybe. If I run a fast food joint, no. If I run a grocery store, absolutely not.

Does the same argument apply to my private hall? If 20% of the town has used it does that mean I can no longer decide who gets a platform there? On top of it all I’m now also legally liable for anything those people say or do while on the premises? It would be wiser for me to close it. After all, it’s not really mine at that point anyway.

It would be one or the other. You either run it as a civilized, regulated place, where you can tell people to fuck off for any reason or no reason at all. In that case, you implicitly support those you let in, and are responsible for what they do. Or you run it as a public square, and just let anyone in for any reason.

What you shouldn't be able to do is run something which in every way, shape, and form resembles a public square, but actually isn't. If you could, the 1st amendment would be rendered totally toothless.

 

[Terrifik]

Welp October Surprise

Google is SLAMED With Anti-Trust Lawsuit!​

Which will still politicy 230 but will probally be washed clean with Bidden Presiedent.
But, undue power if google wins!
What could possibly go wroung!

************************************
Side Note: The kraken has come to Bargen with Bazos (amazon/Twitch) with DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
Couldn't happen to good set of people.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

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?

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?

No, the lawsuits against Null personally don't proceed further because they're filed by idiots who are trying to file them against an individual who wouldn't be in any danger even if S 230 was repealed, when if they wanted to to get anywhere they would need to file them against the corporate entity. The corporate entity which is protected by... Section 230.

Obviously, the US is not a free country, but where is better? The UK? lol. Poland? Hungary? Run by stooges. Serbia? Run by anti-human liberal forces.

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?

Yeah, I mean, if Null incorporated in The Gambia, he'd only have to worry about being legally targeted if he went back to America to visit his family or something. Why wouldn't he take on that burden for the great recompse that comes with running a lolcow forum?

Oh wait, I forgot about that minor detail, the unlawful prosecution of Julian Assange. Turns out you can't be free anywhere if it bothers the jews that own the US government. So yeah, Section 230 does matter.

 

[hundredpercent]

No, the lawsuits against Null personally don't proceed further because they're filed by idiots who are trying to file them against an individual who wouldn't be in any danger even if S 230 was repealed, when if they wanted to to get anywhere they would need to file them against the corporate entity. The corporate entity which is protected by... Section 230.

Right, that's what I mean. Even if everyone had strict liability, Null isn't responsible for Lolcow LLC.

Obviously, the US is not a free country, but where is better? The UK? lol. Poland? Hungary? Run by stooges. Serbia? Run by anti-human liberal forces.

Yeah, I mean, if Null incorporated in The Gambia, he'd only have to worry about being legally targeted if he went back to America to visit his family or something. Why wouldn't he take on that burden for the great recompse that comes with running a lolcow forum?

That's what I mean. If Lolcow LLC were a Gambian company, and it were sued in a US court and didn't show up, then how could they collect on Null for that? If not, then he can just incorporate in whatever country and ignore foreign court judgements.

Oh wait, I forgot about that minor detail, the unlawful prosecution of Julian Assange. Turns out you can't be free anywhere if it bothers the jews that own the US government. So yeah, Section 230 does matter.

...do you really think the Jews are going to be stopped from rape hoaxing Null by *squints* section 230?