It used to be fun to ponder over the conspiracy stuff but this shit is getting real in a hurry. What a crazy time to be alive. I hope the military is fully on our side. I think they are!
The military is on the right side because its made up today of volunteers who love the country. I would be concerned if we where still using the Draft to fill the ranks with conscripts ! Therefore I think we can depend on 90% of the rank and file grunts Im almost sure! The average officer however maybe a different story. I think 65 to 75 % of them will support the Constitution! The rest may need to be shot, fragged or otherwise disposed of!!
Everyone will have differing opinions ,depending on unit /time of service. TYPE of service. It’s that simple. Not all military is the same. Even within each branch. Period.
I believe this is why corrupt news is a national security issue. If the rank and file only have their orders in a vacuum, they have no choice but to obey.
It's only with knowing what is happening outside the chain of command that they can be expected to question an illegal order.
Corrupt news is definitely a problem, but not as much as social media. With MSM news networks people have a fair idea that they may only be hearing one side of a story. Although MSM is dangerous as it's supposed to be the "official" narrative, I think lots of people are waking up to this.
On social media, (most) people are under the impression that everyone is allowed to share their own personal opinion under the guise of free speech in an open conversation. People get the official news AND they are able to discuss it, along with other news from less official sources. People feel its more interactive and involved...
When censoring happens, people don't get to see all the opinions or facts to make their own judgements... There should be opposing opinions allowed in any conversation. If no other opinions are allowed people can easily be swayed into a certain belief..
Such as with the election fraud evidence, and people believing their isn't any. When evidence just simply isn't allowed to be posted. Then it gets labeled as a conspiracy.
Believing there is uncensored free speech in a discussion (and lying about it) is far more detrimental then someone telling you a story on the news.
i giess you have never read operation northwoods documents from the 1960's. that changed it all for me.
when you see high US officials hatching a plan to have a us passenger plane shot down by a fake cuban jet to provoke a justification for the invasion of cuba you realize all conspiracy options have been discussed and used for years.
Ummmm.... I've been in the military A LONG TIME, And 9 out of 10 bubbas are "Merica Fuck yeah" all the way... Every time I read this type of shit it baffles me cause I've never seen it... Even in the heart of lib-tard country.
I think they fucked themselves over with the pay wall thing. The most important thing for them should be 'exposure'. They should keep themselves open and relevant in the conservative sphere and make money by writing books and doing speaking events. Look at Alex Jones. He's totally self-funded, and he still has a huge audience.
Gavin, Milo, Soph, get off the pay wall! Let us see what you're up to!
They should do a "value for value" system where people pay what they think the content is worth willingly and then, after a certain amount, they get credited as producers or on some other sort of peerage system. Maybe give them catchy titles like Knights, Dames, Barons, Baronettes.. something like that.
I got a nice piece of beef for this weekend. Your post made me decide to go get a bottle of Woodford Reserve - not a big whiskey drinker, but that stuff goes so well with a delicious slab of beef and some taters.
Previously undiscovered quake rift opens, swallows San Francisco which enters the realm of Aquaman. The king of the oceans gets pissed when a leftie techie demands avocado toast and a latte and spears the whole bunch of them. America cheers.
They can't. There's no provisions for it in the CA Constitution, or the US Constitution. And, they are too dependent on imported water and power and everything else to survive as an independent country or economy.
That, and big chunks of CA belong to the Federal government, including some fairly important naval, air force and military bases. Try and secede with that, Newsom. Try and take Lawrence Livermore Labs. I triple dog dare you. Or the nukes stockpiled there.
I won't even get into the ports. No way the Fed allows those to be stolen in a secession.
Well then we keep our naval ports, and take the red counties. The rest can leave and take all their f-n money with them. Let them build their communist utopia. Stop all communist transmissions from Hollywood.
Why should they be allowed to just walk away with the beautiful state that it is? Fuck 'em. Catapult them into the Pacific and let them figure out the rest. They don't like the US, they're free to leave - with their clothes and belongings. The rest belongs to US.
"I-I-I used to pray to God, but I think he took a vacation
'Cause now the state of Cali is ran by these corporations
The skyscrapers shadow the homeless, the population
The degradation they face, it should be an abomination
They body parts is stolen and sold to the richest patient
And we the mercenaries at war with the active agents
The legislators that work for the sadists that kill the babies"
God is still here! He was here through all of the bad times since the beginning of time. Read Revelation, wonderful terrible things are to come! We are ALL here because of Him and are being tested in this life. It just feels weird now, because we have had it pretty easy in the USA for the last 60-70 years. Now the good times have born weak men, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Let me just add, that this is the year 2020 AD. Anno Domoni. “The year of our Lord” in English. We are still telling time by Jesus. Even if they change it to CE bullshit on Wikipedia. Be of good courage, have Faith. Read the Gospel of John.
Yea Fuck CE why would they even do that? It has worked fine for thousands of years but suddenly one tech guy gets his panties in a bunch and decides to change it. I'm happy that Judgement is coming to them when 230 is reappelled. I'm praying nothing happens to President Trump because these people are evil. We're standing on the edge of the precipice with only our president and a handful of pedes holding the line :(
Context
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.
Your soul was most important to Jesus and He won salvation for us. He defeated sin death and the grave. He gave Himself 2 titles;Son of God(100% God) AND Son of Man(100% Man) as such he lead a sinless life as a man.He qualiied to be the sinless sacrifice for the sins of the world, yours included. He willingly did this for you as your SOUL has immense value to Him.
Although Jesus cares about all things concerning us. He main concern is your salvation through the blood of Jesus, becoming a part of his kingdom while on earth, which is not an earthly kingdom, and living eternally with Him. He will in time return and rule the earth. When Jesus rules all government will be perfect and wonderful without wars or corruption.
What must I do to be right with Jesus? Believe that He was crucified for your sins and resurrected from the death to offer eternal life, ask Him to forgive your sins, ask Him into your heart and life. Pray Jesus I believe you died for my sins, and rose from the dead, come into my heart and life. Amen
SF is showing massive signs of strain too - people are fleeing, rents are heading down, people are pissed at the continued lockdown, and the crime is alarming. I read SFGate every day to see what the leftists are doing, and every day there's violent crime on the headlines. Murder is skyrocketing in SF/Oakland.
I'm old enough to have seen SF in 1980. It was a shithole. That's how the whole "loft" thing started - commercial property was so cheap, and unwanted, that broke college kids and bike messengers could rent a whole building for nothing, just to keep the lights, heat and water on for the owner. Now, it's $4k a month for a NEW building made to look like one of the old shitholes that lofts were in. Go see movies set in the city in the late 70's and early 80's - if not for the Pacific and the Bay, it could have been NYC. A shithole. LA was just as bad in parts.
I've talked to people who lived in SF in the 70's. It was like NYC - dirty, dangerous, and cheap. It will end up like that again with how things are going.
I didn't even think about Dirty Harry - and you're right. They didn't need to do any set dressing to make SF look dirty and run down. Or for the show Streets Of San Francisco.
SF has always been dirty, in every way, starting back to it's beginnings as a port for Chinese drugs, prostitutes and Chinese mafia.
Some things just never change, they just slap some paint on it.
What pisses me off is when Californians escape their Dystopian state they bring their politics with them and try to do the same thing again. Most of these people are retarded and they never learn. Look at what's happening to Texas! :(
Someone should meme the horse race scene where Max Zorrin bets bond he can't last the whole course and has flunkies put up artificial barriers and extend the jumps during the race. Trump's head on Bond, Biden's on Zorin's.
It's not so much directly investing in them, but investing in a fund. The fund manager sometimes chooses to invest in these companies, along with other smaller tech companies.
But yeah I'm beginning to think I should withdraw from anyone supporting big tech in any way. It's hard nowadays though because where does the boycotting end. It's almost impossible to do anything without supporting GloboHomo in some way.
Yea withdraw! We need to take our freedom of speech back. Like Trump said, 230 is a threat to our Democracy and it needs to be removed ASAP. When this happens then it's OVER for Social media. Lawsuits will start pouring in and Twatter, Facebook and probably Youtube will go down. It's a shame because I love youtube and all the people I learn from every day. This will also make everyone call Trump a Hitler Nazi but they already do that and I firmly believe that if Big Tech is not siezed now then the future of mankind will be ruled by this Technocracy and I'm not joking. We are so imbeded to the internet and it's only being around like 30 years. Imagine Humanity in 500 or 1000 years? We need to fight this now or become slaves to the Matrix.
What happens if we all file a suit for censoring content we should be able to see? We need a thread setup with instructions on how to do a massive lawsuit from hundreds of thousands of people and jam up their lawyers.
You guys don't get it. The protections are good. It needs reform to disqualify those who abuse it, like big tech does. The protections should still be a thing or this place isn't possible.
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
For some reason those 3 words do not get looked at much but given all the evidence of scumbag self-contradiction by Twitter and Facebook, how exactly is anything they do 'in good faith'?
The protections only apply to companies who function as platforms. Social media right now functions as publishers because they censor and edit. The enforcement in this case would be rescinding their platform status.
You know what else no one gets? The EULA they agreed to when signing up for twitter. The one that unequivocally states that twitter owns the rights to all user submitted content and can do anything it wants to with it.
The only confusion is the end user that thinks the 1A applies to their twitter account. It doesn't.
Critical misunderstandings aside, twitter is a scourge and everyone should leave, yesterday.
If you must consume it, after deleting your account, use https://nitter.net/about and set your browsers to use the Nitter redirect plugins so you never touch twitter's servers ever again.
THAT, is how we win. By admitting that twitter is irredeemable and never touching it ever again.
That is a good point about the EULA, and I agree that people should leave twitter, but that's not the solution to this problem.
I think the big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have grown too large and have too much power now that by the time enough users move to a competitor, or if they ever do, it will be too late. If everyone migrates to a Twitter competitor what is stopping the competitor from performing the same type of censorship once they grow large and powerful enough? Now is certainly not the time to leave Twitter and help them silence conservatives while they along with the msm try to convince the public that there was no fraud in this election.
Social media is unlike anything we have ever seen before and it's hard to classify, so I think whatever changes to the law are made need to also directly address social media (or other services that's primary purpose is for communicating) rather than only clarifying publisher/platform from section 230.
The Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government, but I'm sure our founding fathers never imagined that one day something besides a government would become powerful enough to take certain rights away from the people.
Appreciate the analysis but a counterpoint: where does the service’s “power” come from?
Answer: millions of ill informed users.
The solution is not to look for Uncle Sam to fix our problems through regulations. Only we can fix this problem, by being smarter consumers.
Millions of savvy users make smarter choices. They don’t give power to abusive services in the first place. They don’t stay with the abusive service after being abused, either.
You are correct. Twitter has "power" because it has money and the ability to influence public opinion by amplifying or suppressing certain topics/opinions, and they would have neither without a large user base.
I agree that less regulation is always better, but some problems need to be solved by legislation. The Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been necessary because everyone should act like decent human beings, but imagine how different this country would be today without it.
You are also right that educated/informed users wouldn't join or stay a member of abusive services, and if we had more educated/informed people then CNN's ratings would be even lower then they currently are and socialism wouldn't be a real threat. If someone isn't educated by their family/friends/peers or in school, then how will they ever become educated if social media and the MSM only shows them one side of the story and preaches it as fact? This is also why conservatives can't completely leave these platforms because the uneducated would only be exposed to one side which leads them to becoming NPCs because they never learn critical thinking skills.
Twitter also started off as a fair and open platform, because it wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it wasn't. Now Twitter has gotten big enough and rich enough that they can censor conservatives without much fear of their business crashing into the ground. Twitter, and even more so Facebook, are a new kind of monster similar to a monopoly.
These companies have grown so large that it's hard for users to leave.
Many websites allow you to login using your Facebook account, so if you leave you have to worry about the 20 other websites you have tied to Facebook.
Users build up a network of followers that they would have to rebuild from scratch on a new site.
Users would also lose any history they have built over the years (posts, pictures, etc.)
For most users moving to a new site that lacks celebrities they follow or friends and family would defy the point of having a social media account.
Social media is also a hard habit to break for a lot of people due to the constant dopamine hits.
I don't know the solution, but I don't think quitting social media or waiting for an alternative is the answer. Look at the threat social media, google, the MSM, and corrupt politicians pose when they collude. Since these companies are world wide what's stopping the CCP from pumping money into Twitter if it begins to falter, or from pumping money into their preferred startup that will say they are open and neutral until the become big enough to do whatever they want without much repercussion.
And this problem is only going to get worse as technology advances and more of our lives go online. The Internet isn't going away and these problems will need to be addressed at some point, so we might as well do it now before our country is stolen from us. Cause we won't have a chance once Google and the Dems implement a social credit system.
Good point. Think pedes: is thedonald.win a platform or a publisher? If 230 is canceled and this is a platform, is moderation permitted? If a publisher, are the owners open to being sued?
Yet somwhow things at twitter and Facebook have to change.
Well, I'm just spitballing here, but the major problem with 230 has always been the following:
(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
The vagueness of the definition of "otherwise objectionable" content gives FB/Twitter the freedom to moderate subjectively, and the lack of a firm description of what constitutes "good faith" gives them wiggle room to claim they're just trying to protect their platform, when really they're stifling free speech.
but an EO directs on how to enforce the law.
Sidney Powell's website and court filings today both got blocked from being able to be posted on Twitter, and there is NOTHING on that website or in those court filings that could be considered "otherwise objectionable".
What would happen if Trump filed an EO stating to not enforce the "otherwise objectionable" part? Can that be done?
What they are doing now is akin to your phone company blocking service when you say things they don’t like. Or even more insidious things like editorializing and modifying your speech.
No one should have that power. It will only ever lead to abuse.
We just need some legal precedent for punishing those who don't use it "in good faith", as required by the statute. Big Tech clearly falls under this category.
Most of the censorship would fall under "otherwise objectionable" as long as they are taking the actions "in good faith", which they are not. That is the key clause that lets them run fucking wild. It removes liability when they censor "otherwise objectionable" content "in good faith". It's a poorly worded & vague clause which is why it hasn't been litigated properly thus far.
Remember before the election, the head of the FCC said he'd checked with the lawyers, who told him he had the authority to review and modify Section 230?
Though the FCC chair claims there is "bipartisan support" to reform the law, backlash to the announcement was swift — even from within his own office. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wrote on Twitter, "The FCC has no business being the President’s speech police."
Section 230 co-author Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) also responded to Pai's comments. "The FCC does not have the authority to rewrite the law, and Ajit Pai can't appoint himself commissioner of the speech police," said Wyden on Twitter. He linked to a 22-page document on behalf of himself and co-author, former U.S. Representative Chris Cox, that asks the commission to decline to commence a rulemaking.
I think moving forward it's going to be the SEC and more importantly the FEC taking the charge on this. They've been fucking with the election. The payback is already starting from this 'fake election'.
I said this was a National Security crisis, so expect more. You seriously don't fuck with the President - and the people of the United States and not get blowback.
and more importantly the FEC taking the charge on this
you know that FEC had 3 out 6 empty chairs since 2017? and they need min. 4 seats filled to hold a quorum.
Can't find any news about why those appointments weren't made, but the only reasonable theory i've come up with is that swamp RINOs in the US Senate refused to work with Trump on getting good people in there.
A huge part of why this election is so shit, is that the federal org. that should be providing oversight, seems to have been purposefully left non-functional.
Ending section 230 doesn't go far enough. They need to become public utilities with protected service. They have already made their obscene amounts of cash, this won't hurt them.
This'll play well with the "anti-socialists suddenly like socialism" crowd.
In principal, I don't like it "become successful enough and we'll take over your business"
But I suppose the argument is that they reached such levels through anti-competitive behavior, etc, in which case breaking them up somehow might be better? Idk the true answer, tbh, aside from people just moving to other services. People only using 1 service is partly to blame, kinda similar to how people bitch about overpaid athletes, yet continue to watch, buy tickets, or buy merchandise
These very companies control the means by which "competitors" get to compete (looking at google and apple). In essence, real competition isn't allowed. That's the problem with "big tech" right now. In many ways, there just isn't a legitimate way to compete because there are people basically controlling the internet and controlling what people can have on mobile devices.
This thread is totally anti-conservative and anti-Constitution. Not to mention totally short-sighted. NONE of you realize how those precedents can end sites like this?
Like it or not, the companies are private and so will their alternatives. u/halcyondream suggested they become public utilities - totally blind to how corrupt public utilitiy "companies" (or forced monopolies) and public services are (like the fucking post office - right now!)
I would love for you to explain how it's "anti-conservative," it's not a seizure of their business any more than the US government seized telegram and telephone companies, you do realize that AT&T is still around as a private company? That's a better comparison than the USPS. They had competitors too, like Verizon's predecessor Bell Atlantic.
Twitter is already essentially a monopoly, and incredibly influential on the public discourse. You'd let them remain as Big Tech tyrants shutting out anyone that actually leans right wing on important issues from the public discourse, because like the GOPe, you have losing "conservative" ideas.
That's a misconception. There's nothing requiring people to use the internet in the way that google makes convenient. Google can de-list sites from its site indexing, but that's also their prerogative as it's their product. There's absolutely nothing stopping a new entity from doing site indexing on its own and providing an internet search engine, other than people's willingness to create and use it at a level that would compete with google.
edit: lol lots of butthurt people, brainlets fundamentally not understanding the issue and being the big mad about someone challenging their tyrannical 'solutions' towards things they don't like
Imagine if you were a shipping company but in order to ship people's products you had to ship through another company which has the ability to tell you "fuck off and die, I'll take those off your hands, you'll pay me to do it too".
Like your whole business relied on being allowed by another company. Imagine if that company was also in charge of a large bulk of your advertising, so they could decide never to air your ads or show banners or so on.
That is what Google is. Their product and reach is massive. They cooperate with other big tech to censor, cancel or otherwise deplatform not only their competition, but the competition of those other companies.
Additionally, you may end up having to jump through additional hoops in the current environment to use anything but them.
No, the anti-competitive behavior and control of Big Tech, including Google, is unacceptable and they have grown far beyond their scope.
Monopolization and oligopolization is not acceptable.
This is why I loathe hard libertarians. They will let these companies have unlimited power to do whatever they want "bcuz muh private company", but a good capitalism often requires some management.
These are massive companies with massive control of user data that gets sold to other countries, and other countries are able to influence our citizens through these companies.
No, there is no argument you can make that can be accepted on their behalf.
The problem in this debate is that the classic language of capitalism is insufficient for the big tech paradigm. It's not simply a matter of private vs. public, or competitive vs. anti-competitive behavior.
The crux of the issue is the fact these companies manage networks, which are inherently more robust than other markets. Networks behave according to Metcalf's Law, which says that the strength of a network is proportional to the square of the size of the network. You don't use Facebook because of the services Facebook itself offers; you use it because of the other people on Facebook.
If I run a store that sells certain products, all you have to do to compete is put a store next door that offers the same products. That does not translate to networks in the same way for the reason I just stated. However, that in turn does not imply anti-competitive behavior either.
I don't know what the solution is, but a good start would be to legally recognize networks as a special category. Because of the peer-to-peer nature of networks, it should be stressed that the platforms may not have the total right of monopoly control they think they're entitled to.
Google has literally paid billions to keep their software as default on phones, as one anti-competitive example.
You might be able to download Firefox, but most normal people are going to stick to their phone's default browser. Chrome for Android thanks to Google, and Safari for Apple.
I appreciate the actual contribution you made to the discussion. The other people present have no idea what they're talking about.
What you said about network's strength being proportional to the size of the network is 100% true. That actually lends itself to being similar in nature to infrastructure, where competition is counterproductive.
Which is a much better argument against certain 'big tech' items than 'google doesn't do exactly what I like'.
In your analogy, the company handling the logistics has no intrinsic requirement to do business with anyone they do not want to do business with. If they want to lose some potential revenue, that is their business decision.
I understand what google is a lot better than you probably do. Computers with networking capability are 100% capable of communicating with each other without using google.
well, I don't actually use any of them, its just unfortunate how many other people specifically use only 1 or 2 services for certain things, no clamor for competition
They didn't simply become successful though greatness. They were granted legal exclusions to consequences throughout the growth process.
I don't believe business that grew through fair market competition should be subsumed in any circumstance. However, that principle cannot apply to a business that gained and maintains its status through regulatory capture.
Personally, I say get rid of the regulatory capture. Until then, stupid games beget stupid prizes.
There could be any number of reasons why it could crash, I'm not making the point that it's going to, I'm pointing out that the top tech guy's wealth is all tied up in stock.
Ending Section 230 does, in fact, go far enough. It allows private citizens to sue the shit out of the monopolies like Facetard, Instagram, and Twatter for illegally censoring their posts. That's literally all that we need. President Trump is fully aware of this, and FINALLY has realized that ending their 230 protections is the only way to stop their censorship. They will be sued into financial ruin if they continue to illegally censor free speech. Their days of masquerading as a platform, while censoring as a publisher are over. He certainly waited long enough, but better late than never.
They have obscene amounts of money. They can become "publishers" and fight off any lawsuit from illegal content being posted on their website much better than a site like 8chan could. So the censorship will continue, and losing section 230 status won't break them or even do much to dent their bottom line.
It's not illegal for them to censor "free speech," because there's a private company. However, if they were turned into a public utility they would have to provide service to consumers regardless of political views, like telephones and ISPs.
losing section 230 status won't break them or even do much to dent their bottom line.
Thankfully, you are incorrect. Once they are no longer immune to prosecution, they will be sued into oblivion. They will be bankrupted almost immediately. It's ok that you don't grasp this, you're not an attorney. But they could be sued for billions of dollars, and they would be bankrupted before the end of 2021.
It is, in fact, illegal for the to censor "free speech", and the juries will award "punitive damages" to prevent it from occurring again (look it up).
Who's going to sue them and for what? If they were going to be sued for censorship it would be now when they are a platform under section 230 and behaving like a publisher. Not after you eliminate section 230.
Also what are your credentials? You obviously don't even know how free speech works. Free speech in the bill of rights covers government censorship (look it up). If twitter and facebook became public utilities THEN your freedom of speech would be protected and that's the point in turning them into public utilities.
Who's going to sue them and for what? If they were going to be sued for censorship it would be now when they are a platform under section 230 and behaving like a publisher. Not after you eliminate section 230.
So, they can't be sued currently, because Rule 230 grants them immunity from lawsuits. Period. End of story.
Once Rule 230 goes away, you can absolutely sue them. Anyone that wants to sue them can. And for what? For whatever you want. You can sue them for censorship, for publishing things that are demonstrably false. You can sue them 9 ways from Sunday. I'm surprised you don't grasp this. This is the reason that Rule 230 exists.
Dorsey eats one meal a day because calorie restriction extends your lifespan. All these technocrats are singularity true believers who think they are going to become demigods flying round the galaxy for a million years.
Damn right. I'm pissed. I'm not an American, but I'm PISSED. The blatant corruption is mind boggling, and people should be facing serious treason charges.
Among the conservative YouTubers I know, those who are immigrants tend to voice their discontent more. They know true freedom is such a rare and fragile thing in this world.
I think he just needs to have the law actually enforced. They don't qualify by any standard. Arrest them and charge them with a crime that section 230 protects them from. They will have to convince the judge/jury that they meet the requirements of section 230, so they aren't guilty of the crime. Plenty of evidence to the contrary. Put the burden of proof on them. Force them to explain away the plethora of evidence documenting their bias and censorship.
I know what you mean and I’m not a lawfag but I believe in this case it would be. Charge them w/a crime that they think they’re protected by 230, present case as though they clearly don’t qualify for that protection. If their defense is that they do, wouldn’t it be their burden to prove?
Just say "I find Twitter, Facebook, Google et all to be publishers, not platforms, and therefore forfeit the protections granted in Section 230" and be fucking done with it
The law doesn't provide a way to determine the difference between the two so the executive branch can decide until it's cleared up by Congress, which won't do it.
Section 230 says 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" (47 U.S.C. § 230).
This. They can suggest things for you to watch/read.. but then of course they cant resist but to suppress/restrict/shadowban things so you dont get to watch/read.
And these assholes use "safety" or "prevent hurt feelings" as a reason.
Where if someone was a dick, people were dicks back but most people were overall not that dickish, and you learned to handle people who were dicks online. Feelings got hurt sometimes but that's life.
Cyber bullying went from being bullied by classmates from your own school to any Joe cuckface on the internet being mean as cyber bullying.
Bullies back then thought people who were on the internet were losers.. then bullies got on board and started bullying the people who went online to escape them.
Not a bad breakdown, but also a total dodge on that author's part. Every single rebuttal point the author of that article makes is based off how the 230 is written right now. It's totally missing the point that many of us think that the law should be changed, rewritten, overturned, replaced, or any number of other changes. So each of his points that are basically saying "If you think Facebook is in violation of section 230 for shadowbanning, you're very very wrong. Section 230 actually says..." is irrelevant because the whole point of the political discussion around 230 is to change it. Make it so Facebook is in violation for that stuff.
Each one of his 20 or so bullet points is just pointing out exactly why we want 230 reform in the first place.
I agree with your view. However, for me (someone who just learned what Section 230 is) that article helped me understand WHY big tech is in violation. The article is very clear on how the law is currently written and, honestly, I think perfectly highlights the exact pieces warranting immediate changes.
If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!"
Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites. That means it applies to you, as well, and helps to protect your speech. It's what allows you to repeat something someone else said on Facebook and not be liable for it. It's what protects every website that has comments, or any other third-party content. It applies across the entire internet to every website and every user, and not just to big tech.
But pompous random guy on the internet (not you @dingua) that does not mean that it isn't ALSO a massive gift to big tech. Just because other people also get the gift does not mean that big tech doesn't massively benefit from it.
When people make logic mistakes like this, I know they are not benevolent humble workers, they have an agenda. I don't know what this guy's agenda is but I'll pass.
While I agree, (playing devil's advocate) the term "curate" is a bit ambiguous, and every legitimate open forum requires algorithms to determine how things are weighted, even if you completely remove politics. So the devil is in the details.
If they remove content so you don't see it, what libel was committed? There's like 100 billion posts floating around and your screen can fit 20 or so posts at a time. You can easily see that curating content is required even for a true open forum with no political bias. So curating content alone doesn't make you a publisher.
It's in HOW you curate that determines whether you're a publisher or not.
SPEZ: But to get back to my original point: in my previous post, I pointed out that Twitter, et. al should technically NOT be protected by Section 230, exactly as it stands, because they are providing their own content. When they put disclaimers on things, it is MUCH easier to go after them because when they remove things, you have to prove it was for malice, and not white-hat algorithmic reasons, but in this case they ADDED. And if they add, they shouldn't technically be protected anyway.
So you have no control over the way a company presents their information to you. Again, I don't see what crime has been committed that gives you any recourse. They're providing you a service and you don't like the manner in which they do it. There's a remedy for that and you know what it is :)
Let me ask you a question: when you go see a movie, are you in control over how it's curated? Do you have control over what ads play before the movie, or whether the movie starts 5 minutes after start time or 25 minutes after to allow for extra ads? Can you sue the movie theater for not giving you control over the curation of the service they are providing you?
One of the main things that I think you CAN go after them for is in the selling of very specific, personal private information that is protected by law. I think they've gotten in trouble for this but they got a slap on the wrist.
Another thing you can go after them for is the prevention of competition. However, this and the issue in the paragraph above are large scale and not for individual suits, and it's going to be LOTS of Sandman type suits brought by individuals that's going to bring them down, which again goes back to suing them for ADDING information.
TLDR: Relying on the gov't to break up the social media companies that are in cahoots with the gov't just isn't going to work! Trump knows this and is trying to give a remedy so THE PEOPLE can take them down.
This correctly points out that people could already be enforcing 230 right now by suing Twitter for acting as publisher and censor.
Twitter's argument would be that they aren't the ones decided to add the tag - that it's based entirely on user flagging, and third-party fact-checkers. Of course that's blatantly false so they should lose in court.
created a bunch of neurotic adults that grew up with social media/internet world in their entire lives. i grew up with social media/internet being half my life.
Exactly. Only I don't call it "enforcing Section 230," I call it removing it from the picture. They technically aren't a protected entity if that tiny quote out of that (probably enormously obscure) law is accurate.
Thank you. I'll read that later. Because it's quite a long analysis, can you briefly explain where my comment is wrong? I do understand that anybody could sue (and they do) any company now for any content, regardless of 230. I read the myth titled "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" since it's closest to what I said. The only point of correction I'm seeing is that there is no distinct publisher/platform specification - it's all based on who created the content. (which in the case of Disputed tags is Twitter)
Anyway would you agree with the President then, that outright repealing is the best option? Or does it not matter because censoring/removing/editorializing content has nothing to do with 230?
Precisely why we actually need 230. So that TD is allowed to exist and not get sued to oblivion.
What we 100% need to do is reform it and actually enforce it. Reform it so it has clear and reasonable terms of what is and is not allowed, and enforce it by revoking it from Twitter and Facebook who clearly goes well into publisher territory and should not get its protections.
It means they can be sued to hell along with their fact checkers if they fail to provide equal treatment for all, if they use fact checkers to discredit or slander them in any monetary way, they try and block people from their 1a rights, etc, they open themselves up to civil and criminal suits.
If they get categorized as a published they are going to have to censor much more than words, our else they get sued for publishing child porn, inciting violence, hate speech, etc.
Also, place all internet publishers / content providers under the regulation of the FCC. Then they will be swamped by FCC complaints everytime they censor content as a provider, or swamped by complaints when someone posts somethingoffensive as a publisher. Either way the lawyer fees will bankrupt them.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
They have legions of lawyers, software AIs to moderate with, and will have a direct say in 230's replacement.
Lindsey Graham already was trying to "fix" 230 with the EARN-IT bill which would give the deep state a say in who gets 230 protections. Hint: Twitter/FB/Google/Reddit would get them. You wouldn't.
230 being removed outright would destroy the internet as we know it. It must be fixed, not destroyed.
It absolutely would destroy the internet as we know it. But that’s actually a very good thing. The way it’s currently being used is problematic and there are far better ways to utilize the technology
I agree. This experiment has run its course. People are more isolated than ever despite hyper connectivity. Bad ideas like CRT spread like wildfire. We need to move back to more traditional institutions and thoughtfully consider if and when we try to wield this ridiculously powerful tech again.
Yeah at that point we should just disable account creation for a while until 230 gets fixed and then weed out the diphsit sock puppet accounts that post bad shit. Should be pretty easy to get the trolls out if we turn the faucet off for them coming in.
Then we'll just need to make sure people's accounts don't get hacked.
Section 230 is what lets Facebook and Twitter and Reddit (and us) do what they want online. You can’t be sued for content users post because you’re supposed to be a platform for content, not a publisher that produces, selects, and edits content. That was great when people were honest, but now they’re all acting like publishers that have blanket immunity for what they do. They’ll tell you voter fraud isn’t possible, for example, ban conservative views on fucking everything, things like that.
If he can argue it’s for purposes of national security, he may actually be able to halt/stop/limit section 230 through an EO on social media, or the whole of the internet. Depends on the order. He’ll most likely target Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc and not us by being direct with it because otherwise we’re going to be sued into oblivion too despite having been within section 230 rules since we moderate all content equally according to the publicly posted standards.
Let me rephrase. Legal protections will be removed, so Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Reddit will be instantly sued into oblivion if they censor anything because it’s simply conservative.
Ok, but I fail to see what removing 230 does other than make life difficult for social media sites. What we really want is equal access to social media for conservatives without being censored or and asterisk placed next to our content.
Removing it would simply destroy social media. That's a power move, but i think we can come up with something better that is more targeted.
I see this act by Trump as leverage, but not a solution to what we want. What we want is akin to equal access for all people of diff. skin color to water fountains.
Also, didn't Trump do an EO on this on April or may already?
In the short term it would let his message get out and in the long term it would end most sites, including this one. 230 is great if properly enforced and used, the issue was always that they didn’t do that. They made user generated ubiquitous magazines they could edit and control.
It really depends on whether or not it’s accepted. Personally, I think he could do it right now and people could sue and social media would just censor harder in hopes they can bum rush Biden in to make it all stop.
No. It wouldn’t be an attack on our part though, but a standing together and saying “you will take this seriously and audit these results to the best of our satisfaction or we will not be abiding by any new administration.” It’s not like we can go shoot somebody and Trump’d be in office. We’re the ones being attacked here. All we’re basically saying is “the votes don’t make sense, here is a lot of data on that. We also were barred from seeing them, and you guys keep acting like you’re cheating. If we can’t audit this, then we’re proceeding as if we won, which we seemingly did.”
When will this qtard shit finally die. Don't "trust the plan" from a secret person, be active and engage. Trust in Trump if anyone, no one else, especially not an anonymous person. How stupid can people be?
I’ve been watching Q’s info unfold for years. The group has been right on target. Try this. Search Q posts for Ezra then check current events this past 2 weeks
The internet wouldn't go do down, it just means that these social media websites would be viable for what people say on them and could be sued for what is said on their platform.
A newspaper is a publisher. They decide what you see, and can be sued I’m pretty sure. I would liken it to more along the lines of they are trying to pretend they are like a physical printing press, a tool. When in reality they are not, a press won’t stop you from printing whatever you feel like, but a newspaper company will. Maybe I’m out to lunch, I won’t pretend I’m an expert.
Edit - I misread what you posted, I thought you said a newspaper was not a publisher.
Section 230 was meant to protect those who created "public forums" from liability for claims made by others. The primary purpose was so that you couldn't sue a newsstand owner for the contents of the newspapers he was selling. They're not creating any content; they're merely a middleman.
However, over the years the rule has been increasingly abused by social media companies who now act as publishers instead of "public forum" facilitators, manufacturing their own lies, picking and choosing what information you are allowed to see and what you are not allowed to see.
This abuse is what has allowed Facebook, Twitter, etc. to become the monsters that they are because when they publish lies, you can't sue them for libel. If Section 230 is altered or repealed, it will allow people to sue for libel and those companies would quickly go bankrupt for their actions. This is the remedy we are looking for.
It is good that Twitter cannot be used for libel. But there needs to be some punishment against Twitter for censoring Hunter's laptop..
Was Twitter engaging in libel by censoring that story? No.
But dropping libel protections might be the only solution because censoring the laptop story is just as egregious as actively libeling someone. In this case Twitter is actively covering up for a criminal treasonous pedophile. It is also actually swinging election results because, believe it or not, we now have millions of idiots coming forward to say that they were not aware of the Biden family crimes and would not have voted for him otherwise.
Libel protections should NOT exist for content creators. It's that simple. Any content you create you're responsible for the libel, if it exists.
Twitter is a content creator. Therefore, they should be responsible for THEIR libel, not ANY libel that exists on their site. This issue is simple.
The issue involving the censoring of posts is MUCH more difficult conceptually. Sites have a right to censor for the sake of common decency (no vulgarity), advocating for violence, threats, off-topic, etc and keep their "public forum" protections. So determining legally, what censoring allows you to keep your Section 230 protection, and what censoring causes you to lose your protection, is not a simple task. These social media companies are masters of censoring under the guise of other just causes, and when they're caught red handed they claim it was just an error. So it's a very complicated legal issue and even harder to enforce properly.
Libel protections should NOT exist for content creators. It's that simple. Any content you create you're responsible for the libel, if it exists.
Twitter is a content creator. Therefore, they should be responsible for THEIR libel, not ANY libel that exists on their site. This issue is simple.
Twitter is not a content creator. Twitter provides a platform and users create their own content.
Twitter is supposed to provide a platform just as a bookstore owner provides a platform to sell books. The owner of the store is not a content creator.
Twitter restricting and labeling a Trump tweet as "disputed" is censorship but it is not libelous.
Cannot see any example where Twitter was a content creator that libeled someone...
Although it could be argued that Twitter has crossed the line into being a publisher by restricting Tweets.
In general, communication providers are either treated as an ISP or publisher. An ISP (like a telephone service provider) doesn't regulate what you are allowed to say through it's service and can't be be held legally responsible for anything said through it's service. A publisher can curate content but is held responsible for what is posted on it's site (think CNN or a news site).
Section 230 says the social media platforms can curate content while not being held responsible for the content that remains up.
Funny thing about Ajit, remember when all the left wing redditors were going off their nut about Net Neutrality and that shit was repealed two years ago and nothing changed with speeds, in fact, speeds got faster.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
Starting with a big ask/threat, maybe? Threaten to get rid of it to make Big Tech panic (more than they already are), work something out that ends with clarifications and strict enforcement of 230 protection requirements.
“Bu-but if conservatives don’t like getting censored on Twitter and YouTube, they can go make their own platform then!” “SHUTDOWN BITCHUTE BAN PARLOR...”
Everyone freaking out about it being reformed not terminated... <yawn>... this is how Trump opens a negotiation. He always overshoots with the expectation of meeting in the middle. This is the Art of the Deal.
Congress would have to take it up and pass it. Senate would have to agree and approve it. Send to POTUS desk to be signed. Art of the deal. When your aiming for the moon. Shoot for the stars
They would have to propose a bill to destroy the bill..... like the 18th ammendment. Laws work the same. You have to overwrite (read: make new law that neuters the old law, so future generations know it has already been tried and failed) the old laws to remove their legitimacy.
In the past I've generally agreed with the EFF, but not on this issue. I simply think corporations and media companies should have less freedom on the Internet, not more, especially if they take user content.
Of course I don't think repealing 230 is the right way forward either, but it sounds like the President feels he doesn't have any choice right now.
This is what I've been saying in here!
He may be using the EO to acomplish this. This should be interesting if he does.
Alex Jones has entered the chat
Lin Wood has entered the chat
So much fucking winning! 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
It used to be fun to ponder over the conspiracy stuff but this shit is getting real in a hurry. What a crazy time to be alive. I hope the military is fully on our side. I think they are!
The military is on the right side because its made up today of volunteers who love the country. I would be concerned if we where still using the Draft to fill the ranks with conscripts ! Therefore I think we can depend on 90% of the rank and file grunts Im almost sure! The average officer however maybe a different story. I think 65 to 75 % of them will support the Constitution! The rest may need to be shot, fragged or otherwise disposed of!!
Everyone will have differing opinions ,depending on unit /time of service. TYPE of service. It’s that simple. Not all military is the same. Even within each branch. Period.
I believe this is why corrupt news is a national security issue. If the rank and file only have their orders in a vacuum, they have no choice but to obey.
It's only with knowing what is happening outside the chain of command that they can be expected to question an illegal order.
Corrupt news is definitely a problem, but not as much as social media. With MSM news networks people have a fair idea that they may only be hearing one side of a story. Although MSM is dangerous as it's supposed to be the "official" narrative, I think lots of people are waking up to this.
On social media, (most) people are under the impression that everyone is allowed to share their own personal opinion under the guise of free speech in an open conversation. People get the official news AND they are able to discuss it, along with other news from less official sources. People feel its more interactive and involved... When censoring happens, people don't get to see all the opinions or facts to make their own judgements... There should be opposing opinions allowed in any conversation. If no other opinions are allowed people can easily be swayed into a certain belief.. Such as with the election fraud evidence, and people believing their isn't any. When evidence just simply isn't allowed to be posted. Then it gets labeled as a conspiracy.
Believing there is uncensored free speech in a discussion (and lying about it) is far more detrimental then someone telling you a story on the news.
i giess you have never read operation northwoods documents from the 1960's. that changed it all for me.
when you see high US officials hatching a plan to have a us passenger plane shot down by a fake cuban jet to provoke a justification for the invasion of cuba you realize all conspiracy options have been discussed and used for years.
https://publicintelligence.net/operation-northwoods/
It’s a must if we are to move forward as a sovereign nation!
They aren’t. Military are trained to follow orders. All depends on hierarchy, so whoever is at the top.
Ummmm.... I've been in the military A LONG TIME, And 9 out of 10 bubbas are "Merica Fuck yeah" all the way... Every time I read this type of shit it baffles me cause I've never seen it... Even in the heart of lib-tard country.
You have no clue what you are talking about, military based af.
The top? Or the tippy top? I disagree sir
The vast majority of officers will either be on the side of the people or will be not ok with doing anything at all.
LIN WOOD , STONE COLD PATRIOT
CIA has left the chat.
Joe Biden rolled over in his sleep.
With the record player on, of course.
*Was rolled over while sleeping by his handlers.
Harris removed her heels
Impressive stamina for him actually
Joe biden rolled over into a steaming poo that he had left before him earlier. Poor man had lost control of his bowls
Nah. He will roll over on one of the preteens he keeps around to touch his blond leg hair.....yup. Most popular presidential candidate ever. Lol.
Prolly left a cheeky away message on their AIM too. Bastards.
Lol, they’ve got people crawling through here at all times. Guaranteed
Nope. Now he exited the Chad.
Just re-entered the Chad!
Oh shhh, he’s entered the Chad again. This is getting awkward... IN OR OUT MIKE, ffs
**Mike Obama bombed Chad
Stop squirming, and hold still BO
Chad was well-hung, but was no match for the big Mike pipeline.
I no for fact that his nut sack and cock are members here, so probably just came to find them. He needs them to keep his bitch satisfied.
Milo Yiannopoulos has entered the chat
Alert: Roger Stone has entered the building
FBI with CNN camera man entered the chat
In the dead of night? I believe you
The Clinton's have wiretapped the chat. Oh shoot, how do I delete these again?? Hey Weiner! Come here a sec.
I miss Milo.
...and Gavin McInnes. Why does censored.tv have to have a pay wall? I guess the banned and censored conservatives have to pay the bills somehow....
I think they fucked themselves over with the pay wall thing. The most important thing for them should be 'exposure'. They should keep themselves open and relevant in the conservative sphere and make money by writing books and doing speaking events. Look at Alex Jones. He's totally self-funded, and he still has a huge audience.
Gavin, Milo, Soph, get off the pay wall! Let us see what you're up to!
Alex got around the lame paywall gimmick by being a vitamin merchant. At least Soph and co. could at least make an extensive and based apparel line.
They should do a "value for value" system where people pay what they think the content is worth willingly and then, after a certain amount, they get credited as producers or on some other sort of peerage system. Maybe give them catchy titles like Knights, Dames, Barons, Baronettes.. something like that.
Gavin always struck me as a libtard cuck.
He's on Parler and Telegram.
thx!
Tell that to Brandon Straka.
Milo became an informant for the feds, against his own fans.
He was never on anyone's side but his own.
He had ribeye, caveman and whiskey with his turkey and he's ready to take the globalists on.
And he's still ready to eat some leftist as like corn on the cob!!!
https://youtu.be/o5EKuIus-oE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lMbk4DeN7E
I got a nice piece of beef for this weekend. Your post made me decide to go get a bottle of Woodford Reserve - not a big whiskey drinker, but that stuff goes so well with a delicious slab of beef and some taters.
It goes w everything!
Potbelly Goblin has entered the chat
aids skrillex has entered the chat
Are you kidding me?!?!
Oh, here’s Carl the Cuck too!
Goblin Slayer has entered the chat
Owen Shroyer the Goblin Destroyer has entered the chat.
Che guevara has entered the chat
Steven Crowder has entered the chat
So California's economy will crash?
I have a dream where a huge earthquake splits Silicon Valley off into the Pacific. Along with Los Angelas/ Hollyweird. Ahhhh sweet sweet dreams.
Learn to swim
Is there an algorithm for that?
See Tool:Aenema and report back in approximately 6 minutes 😂
Yes. The three. Ring. Cir-cus. Sideshow kind : )
Cause Dad's gonna fix it all soon,
Dad's comin' 'round to put it back the way it ought to be.
code that fuckers
It's funny how all these Silicon Valley fucks look down on the average American, but couldn't survive without them.
I'm praying for rain.
I'm praying for tidal waves!
There are pedes in Silicon Valley too :)
In my dream you are all on holiday hunting in Wyoming. It IS my dream dammit!
WHY?
They’ve been warned.
Smack Dorsey purchases his hookers really young, i mean really young.
Previously undiscovered quake rift opens, swallows San Francisco which enters the realm of Aquaman. The king of the oceans gets pissed when a leftie techie demands avocado toast and a latte and spears the whole bunch of them. America cheers.
I'd pay to watch that as a movie.
When you rewatch "Superman" but somehow find yourself rooting for Lex Luthor more and more.
I can see them trying to secede at this point
They can't. There's no provisions for it in the CA Constitution, or the US Constitution. And, they are too dependent on imported water and power and everything else to survive as an independent country or economy.
That, and big chunks of CA belong to the Federal government, including some fairly important naval, air force and military bases. Try and secede with that, Newsom. Try and take Lawrence Livermore Labs. I triple dog dare you. Or the nukes stockpiled there.
I won't even get into the ports. No way the Fed allows those to be stolen in a secession.
There are probably enough based, armed people living in a 50 mile radius of Sacramento to take it.
51st State of Jefferson
Well then we keep our naval ports, and take the red counties. The rest can leave and take all their f-n money with them. Let them build their communist utopia. Stop all communist transmissions from Hollywood.
Why should they be allowed to just walk away with the beautiful state that it is? Fuck 'em. Catapult them into the Pacific and let them figure out the rest. They don't like the US, they're free to leave - with their clothes and belongings. The rest belongs to US.
The lockdowns are a land grab in disguise. Newsom needs to be hanging from a lampost (in Minecraft) when Trump gets his second term.
"I-I-I used to pray to God, but I think he took a vacation 'Cause now the state of Cali is ran by these corporations The skyscrapers shadow the homeless, the population The degradation they face, it should be an abomination They body parts is stolen and sold to the richest patient And we the mercenaries at war with the active agents The legislators that work for the sadists that kill the babies"
God is still here! He was here through all of the bad times since the beginning of time. Read Revelation, wonderful terrible things are to come! We are ALL here because of Him and are being tested in this life. It just feels weird now, because we have had it pretty easy in the USA for the last 60-70 years. Now the good times have born weak men, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Let me just add, that this is the year 2020 AD. Anno Domoni. “The year of our Lord” in English. We are still telling time by Jesus. Even if they change it to CE bullshit on Wikipedia. Be of good courage, have Faith. Read the Gospel of John.
Yea Fuck CE why would they even do that? It has worked fine for thousands of years but suddenly one tech guy gets his panties in a bunch and decides to change it. I'm happy that Judgement is coming to them when 230 is reappelled. I'm praying nothing happens to President Trump because these people are evil. We're standing on the edge of the precipice with only our president and a handful of pedes holding the line :(
Context Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.
Your soul was most important to Jesus and He won salvation for us. He defeated sin death and the grave. He gave Himself 2 titles;Son of God(100% God) AND Son of Man(100% Man) as such he lead a sinless life as a man.He qualiied to be the sinless sacrifice for the sins of the world, yours included. He willingly did this for you as your SOUL has immense value to Him.
Although Jesus cares about all things concerning us. He main concern is your salvation through the blood of Jesus, becoming a part of his kingdom while on earth, which is not an earthly kingdom, and living eternally with Him. He will in time return and rule the earth. When Jesus rules all government will be perfect and wonderful without wars or corruption.
What must I do to be right with Jesus? Believe that He was crucified for your sins and resurrected from the death to offer eternal life, ask Him to forgive your sins, ask Him into your heart and life. Pray Jesus I believe you died for my sins, and rose from the dead, come into my heart and life. Amen
SF is showing massive signs of strain too - people are fleeing, rents are heading down, people are pissed at the continued lockdown, and the crime is alarming. I read SFGate every day to see what the leftists are doing, and every day there's violent crime on the headlines. Murder is skyrocketing in SF/Oakland.
I'm old enough to have seen SF in 1980. It was a shithole. That's how the whole "loft" thing started - commercial property was so cheap, and unwanted, that broke college kids and bike messengers could rent a whole building for nothing, just to keep the lights, heat and water on for the owner. Now, it's $4k a month for a NEW building made to look like one of the old shitholes that lofts were in. Go see movies set in the city in the late 70's and early 80's - if not for the Pacific and the Bay, it could have been NYC. A shithole. LA was just as bad in parts.
I've talked to people who lived in SF in the 70's. It was like NYC - dirty, dangerous, and cheap. It will end up like that again with how things are going.
I didn't even think about Dirty Harry - and you're right. They didn't need to do any set dressing to make SF look dirty and run down. Or for the show Streets Of San Francisco.
SF has always been dirty, in every way, starting back to it's beginnings as a port for Chinese drugs, prostitutes and Chinese mafia.
Some things just never change, they just slap some paint on it.
Yeah- the Zodiac killer used to operate all around San Fran.
What pisses me off is when Californians escape their Dystopian state they bring their politics with them and try to do the same thing again. Most of these people are retarded and they never learn. Look at what's happening to Texas! :(
Turned blue? I thought California was already a Blue commie shithole..
its too much winning but I can take it
You'll take that winning and you'll LIKE IT
Daddy always punishes the naughty media! Getting weird here lol
No! No! Stop! It’s too much winning!
Let it. This state needs to fall, hard.
Does it? It’s likely red but only “dominion blue”.
If it can be proven so, fine. Otherwise, the leftist hives of LA and the Bay Area need to be purged.
A VIEW TO A KILL was a great movie....plot thwarted sadly though
Someone should meme the horse race scene where Max Zorrin bets bond he can't last the whole course and has flunkies put up artificial barriers and extend the jumps during the race. Trump's head on Bond, Biden's on Zorin's.
Yeah a s that scene where Grace Jones screws An elderly James Bond....I needed eye bleach after that scene.
Exactly can't wait to get shorting those stocks. Now trump can finally enact his plan of shutting these poison platforms down
I'm invested in a fund that invests in some of these big companies. Might be a good time to get out of that now.
Why would you help our Hippie Over Lords?! :(
It's not so much directly investing in them, but investing in a fund. The fund manager sometimes chooses to invest in these companies, along with other smaller tech companies.
But yeah I'm beginning to think I should withdraw from anyone supporting big tech in any way. It's hard nowadays though because where does the boycotting end. It's almost impossible to do anything without supporting GloboHomo in some way.
Yea withdraw! We need to take our freedom of speech back. Like Trump said, 230 is a threat to our Democracy and it needs to be removed ASAP. When this happens then it's OVER for Social media. Lawsuits will start pouring in and Twatter, Facebook and probably Youtube will go down. It's a shame because I love youtube and all the people I learn from every day. This will also make everyone call Trump a Hitler Nazi but they already do that and I firmly believe that if Big Tech is not siezed now then the future of mankind will be ruled by this Technocracy and I'm not joking. We are so imbeded to the internet and it's only being around like 30 years. Imagine Humanity in 500 or 1000 years? We need to fight this now or become slaves to the Matrix.
Fuck’em
Right. Listen to Andrew Torba, don’t repeal it, just enforce properly.
With a repeal, this place becomes liable for everything we assholes say.
This is the way.
What happens if we all file a suit for censoring content we should be able to see? We need a thread setup with instructions on how to do a massive lawsuit from hundreds of thousands of people and jam up their lawyers.
Even if we crash the internet we need to do this
They have brain washed the general public using Twitter, Facebook and Youtube
The MSM is also half of the problem
That's why so many people hate the one who's trying to save them and want Beijin Joe to take over
Michael avenatti has entered the chat...and then turned around and left.
now that's a load which should have been swallowed. a worthless oxygen thief.
I really just want to see Trump go guns a'blazin from this point forth. Give no fucks about nothin.
I want four double barrel years of this. I got a little winded before, but I'm not tired of winning.
I voted for the first time this year, and this is exactly why I voted for the man. Take no prisoners.
Correct
I ain’t no ways tard
imagine 4 more years of giving no fucks
So fucking ready for this.
For 4 more years.
precisely!
Bitch, we reclaiming our time! Trumps getting 8 more years pedes!
Full on John Wayne style.
POTUS goes John Wick style on Big Tech.
Seriously, if they successfully steal it he torched scum on the way out, when he’s sworn in again Jan 20th it’ll simply be a jumping off point.
You guys don't get it. The protections are good. It needs reform to disqualify those who abuse it, like big tech does. The protections should still be a thing or this place isn't possible.
Kinda. There are some issues with how it is written, which is why there was talk of Trump getting guidance issued to interpret it.
I think it was written pretty well - scumbag lefty courts fucked up precedent by grossly misinterpreting the written law.
Consider this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
230, (C). (2) (a)
"In good faith" is not just empty words in law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)
For some reason those 3 words do not get looked at much but given all the evidence of scumbag self-contradiction by Twitter and Facebook, how exactly is anything they do 'in good faith'?
if we deleted that part it would all be solved, that part was lobbied to hell and back for the specific purpose of censoring anything and everything
true.
Donald though would not be able to deport lefty trolls anymore
Exactly. Big liberal superpacs/organizations will use this to tie up any dissenting Internet voice in court until everything is completely sanitized.
The protections only apply to companies who function as platforms. Social media right now functions as publishers because they censor and edit. The enforcement in this case would be rescinding their platform status.
If a meme is grounded in truth, it works well because it cuts through people's mental gymnastics.
You know what else no one gets? The EULA they agreed to when signing up for twitter. The one that unequivocally states that twitter owns the rights to all user submitted content and can do anything it wants to with it.
The only confusion is the end user that thinks the 1A applies to their twitter account. It doesn't.
Critical misunderstandings aside, twitter is a scourge and everyone should leave, yesterday.
If you must consume it, after deleting your account, use https://nitter.net/about and set your browsers to use the Nitter redirect plugins so you never touch twitter's servers ever again.
THAT, is how we win. By admitting that twitter is irredeemable and never touching it ever again.
Agreed. Build it on Mastodon:
https://joinmastodon.org/
ULA's are so useless they aren't even legally binding.
I can write a ULA to let me murder you, but even if you wanted to sign it it still would not be permissible.
No, you can not contractually agree to break existing laws like murder. That’s contract law 101.
Show me examples of end users legally escaping their agreed upon terms of use.
ULA's have been in many cases affirmed by courts provided they aren't breaking laws like Jaqen said. (Like in Vernor vs Autodesk)
That is a good point about the EULA, and I agree that people should leave twitter, but that's not the solution to this problem.
I think the big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have grown too large and have too much power now that by the time enough users move to a competitor, or if they ever do, it will be too late. If everyone migrates to a Twitter competitor what is stopping the competitor from performing the same type of censorship once they grow large and powerful enough? Now is certainly not the time to leave Twitter and help them silence conservatives while they along with the msm try to convince the public that there was no fraud in this election.
Social media is unlike anything we have ever seen before and it's hard to classify, so I think whatever changes to the law are made need to also directly address social media (or other services that's primary purpose is for communicating) rather than only clarifying publisher/platform from section 230.
The Constitution protects our rights from being infringed upon by the government, but I'm sure our founding fathers never imagined that one day something besides a government would become powerful enough to take certain rights away from the people.
Appreciate the analysis but a counterpoint: where does the service’s “power” come from?
Answer: millions of ill informed users.
The solution is not to look for Uncle Sam to fix our problems through regulations. Only we can fix this problem, by being smarter consumers.
Millions of savvy users make smarter choices. They don’t give power to abusive services in the first place. They don’t stay with the abusive service after being abused, either.
You are correct. Twitter has "power" because it has money and the ability to influence public opinion by amplifying or suppressing certain topics/opinions, and they would have neither without a large user base.
I agree that less regulation is always better, but some problems need to be solved by legislation. The Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been necessary because everyone should act like decent human beings, but imagine how different this country would be today without it.
You are also right that educated/informed users wouldn't join or stay a member of abusive services, and if we had more educated/informed people then CNN's ratings would be even lower then they currently are and socialism wouldn't be a real threat. If someone isn't educated by their family/friends/peers or in school, then how will they ever become educated if social media and the MSM only shows them one side of the story and preaches it as fact? This is also why conservatives can't completely leave these platforms because the uneducated would only be exposed to one side which leads them to becoming NPCs because they never learn critical thinking skills.
Twitter also started off as a fair and open platform, because it wouldn't have gotten off the ground if it wasn't. Now Twitter has gotten big enough and rich enough that they can censor conservatives without much fear of their business crashing into the ground. Twitter, and even more so Facebook, are a new kind of monster similar to a monopoly.
These companies have grown so large that it's hard for users to leave.
I don't know the solution, but I don't think quitting social media or waiting for an alternative is the answer. Look at the threat social media, google, the MSM, and corrupt politicians pose when they collude. Since these companies are world wide what's stopping the CCP from pumping money into Twitter if it begins to falter, or from pumping money into their preferred startup that will say they are open and neutral until the become big enough to do whatever they want without much repercussion.
And this problem is only going to get worse as technology advances and more of our lives go online. The Internet isn't going away and these problems will need to be addressed at some point, so we might as well do it now before our country is stolen from us. Cause we won't have a chance once Google and the Dems implement a social credit system.
Good point. Think pedes: is thedonald.win a platform or a publisher? If 230 is canceled and this is a platform, is moderation permitted? If a publisher, are the owners open to being sued?
Yet somwhow things at twitter and Facebook have to change.
Well, I'm just spitballing here, but the major problem with 230 has always been the following:
The vagueness of the definition of "otherwise objectionable" content gives FB/Twitter the freedom to moderate subjectively, and the lack of a firm description of what constitutes "good faith" gives them wiggle room to claim they're just trying to protect their platform, when really they're stifling free speech.
but an EO directs on how to enforce the law.
Sidney Powell's website and court filings today both got blocked from being able to be posted on Twitter, and there is NOTHING on that website or in those court filings that could be considered "otherwise objectionable".
What would happen if Trump filed an EO stating to not enforce the "otherwise objectionable" part? Can that be done?
pretty sure that would be seen as him trying to change laws written by Congress and get immediately shut down by the first court that sees it.
I agree.
What they are doing now is akin to your phone company blocking service when you say things they don’t like. Or even more insidious things like editorializing and modifying your speech.
No one should have that power. It will only ever lead to abuse.
We just need some legal precedent for punishing those who don't use it "in good faith", as required by the statute. Big Tech clearly falls under this category.
Most of the censorship would fall under "otherwise objectionable" as long as they are taking the actions "in good faith", which they are not. That is the key clause that lets them run fucking wild. It removes liability when they censor "otherwise objectionable" content "in good faith". It's a poorly worded & vague clause which is why it hasn't been litigated properly thus far.
Yeah, that's more than zero so it counts.
Be a shame if we seized their assets and used them to MAGA.
Yes, it would seem to be the case.
Remember before the election, the head of the FCC said he'd checked with the lawyers, who told him he had the authority to review and modify Section 230?
They shut him down real fast, didn't they?
Article I'm referencing.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-will-clarify-section-230-protections
They shut him down FAST.
I think moving forward it's going to be the SEC and more importantly the FEC taking the charge on this. They've been fucking with the election. The payback is already starting from this 'fake election'.
I said this was a National Security crisis, so expect more. You seriously don't fuck with the President - and the people of the United States and not get blowback.
Gloves are off.
you know that FEC had 3 out 6 empty chairs since 2017? and they need min. 4 seats filled to hold a quorum.
Can't find any news about why those appointments weren't made, but the only reasonable theory i've come up with is that swamp RINOs in the US Senate refused to work with Trump on getting good people in there.
A huge part of why this election is so shit, is that the federal org. that should be providing oversight, seems to have been purposefully left non-functional.
Wtf, this needs talked about more. How can we even have an election without a board filled with members? Lol
Then do it Mr President!
Enough talk, lets drop the hammer on them
Fuck the optics, they are already calling you a dictator
We are definitely at war. Way past time we all started acting like it.
Ending section 230 doesn't go far enough. They need to become public utilities with protected service. They have already made their obscene amounts of cash, this won't hurt them.
This'll play well with the "anti-socialists suddenly like socialism" crowd.
In principal, I don't like it "become successful enough and we'll take over your business"
But I suppose the argument is that they reached such levels through anti-competitive behavior, etc, in which case breaking them up somehow might be better? Idk the true answer, tbh, aside from people just moving to other services. People only using 1 service is partly to blame, kinda similar to how people bitch about overpaid athletes, yet continue to watch, buy tickets, or buy merchandise
These very companies control the means by which "competitors" get to compete (looking at google and apple). In essence, real competition isn't allowed. That's the problem with "big tech" right now. In many ways, there just isn't a legitimate way to compete because there are people basically controlling the internet and controlling what people can have on mobile devices.
Agreed, anti-competitiveness is definitely part of the issue
This thread is totally anti-conservative and anti-Constitution. Not to mention totally short-sighted. NONE of you realize how those precedents can end sites like this?
Like it or not, the companies are private and so will their alternatives. u/halcyondream suggested they become public utilities - totally blind to how corrupt public utilitiy "companies" (or forced monopolies) and public services are (like the fucking post office - right now!)
I would love for you to explain how it's "anti-conservative," it's not a seizure of their business any more than the US government seized telegram and telephone companies, you do realize that AT&T is still around as a private company? That's a better comparison than the USPS. They had competitors too, like Verizon's predecessor Bell Atlantic.
Twitter is already essentially a monopoly, and incredibly influential on the public discourse. You'd let them remain as Big Tech tyrants shutting out anyone that actually leans right wing on important issues from the public discourse, because like the GOPe, you have losing "conservative" ideas.
That's a misconception. There's nothing requiring people to use the internet in the way that google makes convenient. Google can de-list sites from its site indexing, but that's also their prerogative as it's their product. There's absolutely nothing stopping a new entity from doing site indexing on its own and providing an internet search engine, other than people's willingness to create and use it at a level that would compete with google.
edit: lol lots of butthurt people, brainlets fundamentally not understanding the issue and being the big mad about someone challenging their tyrannical 'solutions' towards things they don't like
Imagine if you were a shipping company but in order to ship people's products you had to ship through another company which has the ability to tell you "fuck off and die, I'll take those off your hands, you'll pay me to do it too".
Like your whole business relied on being allowed by another company. Imagine if that company was also in charge of a large bulk of your advertising, so they could decide never to air your ads or show banners or so on.
That is what Google is. Their product and reach is massive. They cooperate with other big tech to censor, cancel or otherwise deplatform not only their competition, but the competition of those other companies.
Additionally, you may end up having to jump through additional hoops in the current environment to use anything but them.
No, the anti-competitive behavior and control of Big Tech, including Google, is unacceptable and they have grown far beyond their scope.
Monopolization and oligopolization is not acceptable.
This is why I loathe hard libertarians. They will let these companies have unlimited power to do whatever they want "bcuz muh private company", but a good capitalism often requires some management.
These are massive companies with massive control of user data that gets sold to other countries, and other countries are able to influence our citizens through these companies.
No, there is no argument you can make that can be accepted on their behalf.
The problem in this debate is that the classic language of capitalism is insufficient for the big tech paradigm. It's not simply a matter of private vs. public, or competitive vs. anti-competitive behavior.
The crux of the issue is the fact these companies manage networks, which are inherently more robust than other markets. Networks behave according to Metcalf's Law, which says that the strength of a network is proportional to the square of the size of the network. You don't use Facebook because of the services Facebook itself offers; you use it because of the other people on Facebook.
If I run a store that sells certain products, all you have to do to compete is put a store next door that offers the same products. That does not translate to networks in the same way for the reason I just stated. However, that in turn does not imply anti-competitive behavior either.
I don't know what the solution is, but a good start would be to legally recognize networks as a special category. Because of the peer-to-peer nature of networks, it should be stressed that the platforms may not have the total right of monopoly control they think they're entitled to.
Google has literally paid billions to keep their software as default on phones, as one anti-competitive example.
You might be able to download Firefox, but most normal people are going to stick to their phone's default browser. Chrome for Android thanks to Google, and Safari for Apple.
I appreciate the actual contribution you made to the discussion. The other people present have no idea what they're talking about.
What you said about network's strength being proportional to the size of the network is 100% true. That actually lends itself to being similar in nature to infrastructure, where competition is counterproductive.
Which is a much better argument against certain 'big tech' items than 'google doesn't do exactly what I like'.
Yup
In your analogy, the company handling the logistics has no intrinsic requirement to do business with anyone they do not want to do business with. If they want to lose some potential revenue, that is their business decision.
I understand what google is a lot better than you probably do. Computers with networking capability are 100% capable of communicating with each other without using google.
There's no requirement to have CIA funding before starting a search engine.
It’s either take them down, or live under a global technocracy lol
well, I don't actually use any of them, its just unfortunate how many other people specifically use only 1 or 2 services for certain things, no clamor for competition
Yeah, I agree with this sentiment - shouldn't be able to leverage liberties then squash them, good way of putting it
They didn't simply become successful though greatness. They were granted legal exclusions to consequences throughout the growth process.
I don't believe business that grew through fair market competition should be subsumed in any circumstance. However, that principle cannot apply to a business that gained and maintains its status through regulatory capture.
Personally, I say get rid of the regulatory capture. Until then, stupid games beget stupid prizes.
These companies need to be destroyed and ceos in jail.
Most of their wealth is in stocks. Some might cash out in time, a lot won't. I'd bet a lot of them can't cash out, because of vesting rules.
Bezos, it's been said, is very cash poor. His wealth is ALL stock. If Amazon crashes, so does he.
Keep an eye on tech stocks. If they start to crash - the sell off is starting.
I think this move would be a small ding to their AWS business and nothing more. Amazon megacorp will still be worth a gajillion dollars.
Maybe. But that wasn't my point - Bezos won't be one of the richest men in the world if the stock price crashes significantly.
Why would Amazon stock crash? They’ll still sell cheap Chinese goods no matter what happens with 230. Walmart will be fine as well.
There could be any number of reasons why it could crash, I'm not making the point that it's going to, I'm pointing out that the top tech guy's wealth is all tied up in stock.
Yeah, that’s true. Personally I view that as big dick energy, even if he is a muck raking cunt.
A big way to tank Amazon would be to ban online sales of China-made products.
That would tank most of the overall economy.
Hasn't she already sold off something like 2 billion, for charity?
Ending Section 230 does, in fact, go far enough. It allows private citizens to sue the shit out of the monopolies like Facetard, Instagram, and Twatter for illegally censoring their posts. That's literally all that we need. President Trump is fully aware of this, and FINALLY has realized that ending their 230 protections is the only way to stop their censorship. They will be sued into financial ruin if they continue to illegally censor free speech. Their days of masquerading as a platform, while censoring as a publisher are over. He certainly waited long enough, but better late than never.
They have obscene amounts of money. They can become "publishers" and fight off any lawsuit from illegal content being posted on their website much better than a site like 8chan could. So the censorship will continue, and losing section 230 status won't break them or even do much to dent their bottom line.
It's not illegal for them to censor "free speech," because there's a private company. However, if they were turned into a public utility they would have to provide service to consumers regardless of political views, like telephones and ISPs.
Thankfully, you are incorrect. Once they are no longer immune to prosecution, they will be sued into oblivion. They will be bankrupted almost immediately. It's ok that you don't grasp this, you're not an attorney. But they could be sued for billions of dollars, and they would be bankrupted before the end of 2021.
It is, in fact, illegal for the to censor "free speech", and the juries will award "punitive damages" to prevent it from occurring again (look it up).
Who's going to sue them and for what? If they were going to be sued for censorship it would be now when they are a platform under section 230 and behaving like a publisher. Not after you eliminate section 230.
Also what are your credentials? You obviously don't even know how free speech works. Free speech in the bill of rights covers government censorship (look it up). If twitter and facebook became public utilities THEN your freedom of speech would be protected and that's the point in turning them into public utilities.
Who's going to sue them and for what? If they were going to be sued for censorship it would be now when they are a platform under section 230 and behaving like a publisher. Not after you eliminate section 230.
So, they can't be sued currently, because Rule 230 grants them immunity from lawsuits. Period. End of story.
Once Rule 230 goes away, you can absolutely sue them. Anyone that wants to sue them can. And for what? For whatever you want. You can sue them for censorship, for publishing things that are demonstrably false. You can sue them 9 ways from Sunday. I'm surprised you don't grasp this. This is the reason that Rule 230 exists.
That gives them protection as a platform, not a publisher which they are clearly behaving like.
You can sue them, costing yourself money, for lawsuits that will be thrown out. A private company doesn't have to grant you "freedom of speech."
Alternatively, revoke their Section 230, let people sue the shit out of them, and start trust busting them. Why was FB allowed to acquire Instagram?
YouTube never seemed to have any problems until Google bought it.
I can only imagine if Orange Man actually turned Bad (for communists). It would be great.
Its the only way to defeat communism and communists. You can't be soft on them.
六四天安門 事件
Based
Trump needs to do this YESTERDAY or it's going to get very hard for him when when he wins.
He's pissed
He's embodied so much patience the last 4 years. They have been prodding and prodding the whole way. They will reap what they sow.
Scorched Earth! They’ve been covering up election fraud while threatening him and his family! Trumps about to BTFO everyone!
GET THE FUCK OUT!
GOOD!!!! We aren't interested in other (((OPINIONS)))
Dorsey is just a lightweight, dont ever dispute the President of the United States
Yup that’s going to be a new meme template around here!
Dorsey eats one meal a day because calorie restriction extends your lifespan. All these technocrats are singularity true believers who think they are going to become demigods flying round the galaxy for a million years.
One-Meal-a-day supposedly does help your immune system. But I think the other shit is from L Ron Hubbard's Science Fiction BS
Adopting the presidents vernacular I see!
Anyone who cares about freedom should be pissed by now.
Damn right. I'm pissed. I'm not an American, but I'm PISSED. The blatant corruption is mind boggling, and people should be facing serious treason charges.
Among the conservative YouTubers I know, those who are immigrants tend to voice their discontent more. They know true freedom is such a rare and fragile thing in this world.
I’ve been pissed for about 20 years.
Yes! Trump memes + prequel memes!! Need moar!!!
he should have done this years ago
Fuckbook and Twatter are serious dangers to our democracy and liberties
It's one thing to take the brunt. It's another to see all your friends and other good people get hit with the same censorship and treatment.
Trump is probably more fired up seeing so many normal people get deplatformed and have their causes and work shadowbanned or canceled.
Executive order
Just like the simulations.
I'll try shitposting. That's a good trick.
It will be done my lord
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one!
Might be an option for an EO if it's a national security issue. (Which at this point it is)
DARPA might finally get their resources back that they invested in /s
This! Let’s see what SCOTUS has to say about this, and until then, 🖕🏼🖕🏼BigTech. We lock them up in litigation! 🤣🤣
I think he just needs to have the law actually enforced. They don't qualify by any standard. Arrest them and charge them with a crime that section 230 protects them from. They will have to convince the judge/jury that they meet the requirements of section 230, so they aren't guilty of the crime. Plenty of evidence to the contrary. Put the burden of proof on them. Force them to explain away the plethora of evidence documenting their bias and censorship.
I know what you mean and I’m not a lawfag but I believe in this case it would be. Charge them w/a crime that they think they’re protected by 230, present case as though they clearly don’t qualify for that protection. If their defense is that they do, wouldn’t it be their burden to prove?
It is on the plaintiff. You mean it isn't on the defendant.
Just say "I find Twitter, Facebook, Google et all to be publishers, not platforms, and therefore forfeit the protections granted in Section 230" and be fucking done with it
The law doesn't provide a way to determine the difference between the two so the executive branch can decide until it's cleared up by Congress, which won't do it.
I thought it already was one?
Oh shit!
Whaaaaat. Oh no he didn't!
❗This claim about overturning Section 230 made us shit ourselves.
🤣
And when Twitter puts their own disclaimers on people's posts, is that "information provided by another information content provider?"
The answer is NO
This. They can suggest things for you to watch/read.. but then of course they cant resist but to suppress/restrict/shadowban things so you dont get to watch/read.
And these assholes use "safety" or "prevent hurt feelings" as a reason.
I miss older days on the internet.
Where if someone was a dick, people were dicks back but most people were overall not that dickish, and you learned to handle people who were dicks online. Feelings got hurt sometimes but that's life.
Cyber bullying went from being bullied by classmates from your own school to any Joe cuckface on the internet being mean as cyber bullying.
Tsk tsk.
Bullies back then thought people who were on the internet were losers.. then bullies got on board and started bullying the people who went online to escape them.
sad. but yeah, the good old days.
Not a bad breakdown, but also a total dodge on that author's part. Every single rebuttal point the author of that article makes is based off how the 230 is written right now. It's totally missing the point that many of us think that the law should be changed, rewritten, overturned, replaced, or any number of other changes. So each of his points that are basically saying "If you think Facebook is in violation of section 230 for shadowbanning, you're very very wrong. Section 230 actually says..." is irrelevant because the whole point of the political discussion around 230 is to change it. Make it so Facebook is in violation for that stuff.
Each one of his 20 or so bullet points is just pointing out exactly why we want 230 reform in the first place.
I agree with your view. However, for me (someone who just learned what Section 230 is) that article helped me understand WHY big tech is in violation. The article is very clear on how the law is currently written and, honestly, I think perfectly highlights the exact pieces warranting immediate changes.
Someone please get this guy's link more traction.
Education is THE single-most important weapon we have against liberals.
Can't win an argument with shitty ammo.
Ragnar above you has the correct answer to his post.
This site is just dodgy at logic. For example:
But pompous random guy on the internet (not you @dingua) that does not mean that it isn't ALSO a massive gift to big tech. Just because other people also get the gift does not mean that big tech doesn't massively benefit from it.
When people make logic mistakes like this, I know they are not benevolent humble workers, they have an agenda. I don't know what this guy's agenda is but I'll pass.
This is important.
This is huge bc it is destroying us as a country. Not allowing us as society to take in what we want, but force fed what an algorithm believes.
Fuck em up. I fucking hate these losers
While I agree, (playing devil's advocate) the term "curate" is a bit ambiguous, and every legitimate open forum requires algorithms to determine how things are weighted, even if you completely remove politics. So the devil is in the details.
If they remove content so you don't see it, what libel was committed? There's like 100 billion posts floating around and your screen can fit 20 or so posts at a time. You can easily see that curating content is required even for a true open forum with no political bias. So curating content alone doesn't make you a publisher.
It's in HOW you curate that determines whether you're a publisher or not.
SPEZ: But to get back to my original point: in my previous post, I pointed out that Twitter, et. al should technically NOT be protected by Section 230, exactly as it stands, because they are providing their own content. When they put disclaimers on things, it is MUCH easier to go after them because when they remove things, you have to prove it was for malice, and not white-hat algorithmic reasons, but in this case they ADDED. And if they add, they shouldn't technically be protected anyway.
So you have no control over the way a company presents their information to you. Again, I don't see what crime has been committed that gives you any recourse. They're providing you a service and you don't like the manner in which they do it. There's a remedy for that and you know what it is :)
Let me ask you a question: when you go see a movie, are you in control over how it's curated? Do you have control over what ads play before the movie, or whether the movie starts 5 minutes after start time or 25 minutes after to allow for extra ads? Can you sue the movie theater for not giving you control over the curation of the service they are providing you?
One of the main things that I think you CAN go after them for is in the selling of very specific, personal private information that is protected by law. I think they've gotten in trouble for this but they got a slap on the wrist.
Another thing you can go after them for is the prevention of competition. However, this and the issue in the paragraph above are large scale and not for individual suits, and it's going to be LOTS of Sandman type suits brought by individuals that's going to bring them down, which again goes back to suing them for ADDING information.
TLDR: Relying on the gov't to break up the social media companies that are in cahoots with the gov't just isn't going to work! Trump knows this and is trying to give a remedy so THE PEOPLE can take them down.
Good chat!
This correctly points out that people could already be enforcing 230 right now by suing Twitter for acting as publisher and censor.
Twitter's argument would be that they aren't the ones decided to add the tag - that it's based entirely on user flagging, and third-party fact-checkers. Of course that's blatantly false so they should lose in court.
algorithm and ai is the worse thing to happen for social media.
Yup. Well, social media is the worst thing to happen. Period.
created a bunch of neurotic adults that grew up with social media/internet world in their entire lives. i grew up with social media/internet being half my life.
yeah.. social media is poison.
Radical liberals controlling all major social media platforms is the worst thing to happen for social media
Yep. Social media was great pre-obama years. Relatively open and free.
Nahh
Exactly. Only I don't call it "enforcing Section 230," I call it removing it from the picture. They technically aren't a protected entity if that tiny quote out of that (probably enormously obscure) law is accurate.
Thank you. I'll read that later. Because it's quite a long analysis, can you briefly explain where my comment is wrong? I do understand that anybody could sue (and they do) any company now for any content, regardless of 230. I read the myth titled "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" since it's closest to what I said. The only point of correction I'm seeing is that there is no distinct publisher/platform specification - it's all based on who created the content. (which in the case of Disputed tags is Twitter)
Anyway would you agree with the President then, that outright repealing is the best option? Or does it not matter because censoring/removing/editorializing content has nothing to do with 230?
So what does this mean? I'm responsible for my shitposts or td win is?
Td allows you to shit post
But it cannot edit, fact check, or censor your shitty posts, because then they are a publisher, not a platform.
Precisely why we actually need 230. So that TD is allowed to exist and not get sued to oblivion.
What we 100% need to do is reform it and actually enforce it. Reform it so it has clear and reasonable terms of what is and is not allowed, and enforce it by revoking it from Twitter and Facebook who clearly goes well into publisher territory and should not get its protections.
Agreed, we need reform if not repeal and replace.
This is false. TD will censor certain posts.
Nope, it just can't be sued for your shitposts. It can "censor" them by deleting them or deporting you.
That's not what 2:30 means
well are we talking AM or PM?
Boys will be boys.
Shitposts will be shitposts.
With 230 only you are responsible if td.win makes a fair best effort to remove illegal content when notified.
Without 230 td.win could be responsible.
You always share the blame, but at this point, what difference does it make? Shitpost away.
It means they can be sued to hell along with their fact checkers if they fail to provide equal treatment for all, if they use fact checkers to discredit or slander them in any monetary way, they try and block people from their 1a rights, etc, they open themselves up to civil and criminal suits.
So it needs to be amended to clarify that a provider does not impress their own influence or views upon the informantion being provided.
Also it should say stop kicking people off Twitter for saying retard and faggot
If they get categorized as a published they are going to have to censor much more than words, our else they get sued for publishing child porn, inciting violence, hate speech, etc.
Also, place all internet publishers / content providers under the regulation of the FCC. Then they will be swamped by FCC complaints everytime they censor content as a provider, or swamped by complaints when someone posts somethingoffensive as a publisher. Either way the lawyer fees will bankrupt them.
Can’t this backfire as well on places like gab abd Parler with lib shits doing the same thing ?
Only if Gab or Parler start censorship
This is helpful.
So if somebody here calls for violence in a round about way, or simply quotes a founding father, the site owners get in trouble?
It needs to be FIXED, not TERMINATED.
If it's removed, this site dies within weeks, because the admins will be liable for every stupid thing some lefty troll swoops in and posts.
And remember, the left is the party of cheese pizza.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
yes, this exactly.
What size? TheDonald is growing fast...
Large publicly held corporations. May need to take care that non-profit status is not used as a loophole.
FAGGOT!
The damage to our enemies (Twitter/FB/Google/Reddit) would be far worse. We can always reorganize.
No, it wouldn't.
They have legions of lawyers, software AIs to moderate with, and will have a direct say in 230's replacement.
Lindsey Graham already was trying to "fix" 230 with the EARN-IT bill which would give the deep state a say in who gets 230 protections. Hint: Twitter/FB/Google/Reddit would get them. You wouldn't.
230 being removed outright would destroy the internet as we know it. It must be fixed, not destroyed.
Build back better😂
This is important. This is why I’m Building netwrks.io
It absolutely would destroy the internet as we know it. But that’s actually a very good thing. The way it’s currently being used is problematic and there are far better ways to utilize the technology
I agree. This experiment has run its course. People are more isolated than ever despite hyper connectivity. Bad ideas like CRT spread like wildfire. We need to move back to more traditional institutions and thoughtfully consider if and when we try to wield this ridiculously powerful tech again.
Agreed. Currently working on something that closely resembles this.
You an engineer? I like the way you think.
Yes. I make my living writing software... I can find something else to do though!
haha same.
Picked up a HAM radio just for such an occasion.
Tuned to 17.76 Patriot FM
ask nellie if hers is for q stuff
We are on the front lines of the infowar... I don’t think locking down would be a good idea
I'm gonna need some help
I refuse to be a whore. So I'm punished? No ty
Username checks out
Yeah I was wondering what this means for us...
Yeah at that point we should just disable account creation for a while until 230 gets fixed and then weed out the diphsit sock puppet accounts that post bad shit. Should be pretty easy to get the trolls out if we turn the faucet off for them coming in.
Then we'll just need to make sure people's accounts don't get hacked.
And then No one would be allowed to talk about throwing commies out of helicopters.
I don’t know what life would be without that
The Communist Party is already illegal under US law. I think we can still talk about throwing commies out of helicopters.
Theft is illegal too, killing thieves is mostly illegal.
Host website server in sweden?
Time to heal the wounds caused by China and their Big Tech and Democrat allies
I mean there are lots of ways to heal a wound from pussy ass cream to cauterizing the shit out of it.
Trump is wrong. Erasing Section 230 would harm us. Here are real solutions.
I have such a big Mike right now.
Eh gross.
I love the internet
i lol'd
dont tell Barry
It’s cool bro. This is a safe space to come out. Speaking of coming out...
That's my President!
I want to upvote, but you're sitting at +45. Too perfect.
Trump is wrong. Erasing Section 230 would harm us. Here are real solutions.
Section 230 is what lets Facebook and Twitter and Reddit (and us) do what they want online. You can’t be sued for content users post because you’re supposed to be a platform for content, not a publisher that produces, selects, and edits content. That was great when people were honest, but now they’re all acting like publishers that have blanket immunity for what they do. They’ll tell you voter fraud isn’t possible, for example, ban conservative views on fucking everything, things like that.
If he can argue it’s for purposes of national security, he may actually be able to halt/stop/limit section 230 through an EO on social media, or the whole of the internet. Depends on the order. He’ll most likely target Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc and not us by being direct with it because otherwise we’re going to be sued into oblivion too despite having been within section 230 rules since we moderate all content equally according to the publicly posted standards.
Let me rephrase. Legal protections will be removed, so Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Reddit will be instantly sued into oblivion if they censor anything because it’s simply conservative.
Ok, but I fail to see what removing 230 does other than make life difficult for social media sites. What we really want is equal access to social media for conservatives without being censored or and asterisk placed next to our content.
Removing it would simply destroy social media. That's a power move, but i think we can come up with something better that is more targeted.
I see this act by Trump as leverage, but not a solution to what we want. What we want is akin to equal access for all people of diff. skin color to water fountains.
Also, didn't Trump do an EO on this on April or may already?
In the short term it would let his message get out and in the long term it would end most sites, including this one. 230 is great if properly enforced and used, the issue was always that they didn’t do that. They made user generated ubiquitous magazines they could edit and control.
Without section 230, he who has the most lawyers wins. That isn't us.
Without section 230, he who has the most lawyers wins. That isn't us.
FAGGOT!
It really depends on whether or not it’s accepted. Personally, I think he could do it right now and people could sue and social media would just censor harder in hopes they can bum rush Biden in to make it all stop.
alwayshasbeenmeme.jpg
No. It wouldn’t be an attack on our part though, but a standing together and saying “you will take this seriously and audit these results to the best of our satisfaction or we will not be abiding by any new administration.” It’s not like we can go shoot somebody and Trump’d be in office. We’re the ones being attacked here. All we’re basically saying is “the votes don’t make sense, here is a lot of data on that. We also were barred from seeing them, and you guys keep acting like you’re cheating. If we can’t audit this, then we’re proceeding as if we won, which we seemingly did.”
That's about half a step off from what's happening now.
When will this qtard shit finally die. Don't "trust the plan" from a secret person, be active and engage. Trust in Trump if anyone, no one else, especially not an anonymous person. How stupid can people be?
I’ve been watching Q’s info unfold for years. The group has been right on target. Try this. Search Q posts for Ezra then check current events this past 2 weeks
The internet wouldn't go do down, it just means that these social media websites would be viable for what people say on them and could be sued for what is said on their platform.
Yeah section 230 is unrelated to the internet as a technology. None of this would affect that.
Those would some dark days.
It is for the purpose of National Security. We already know that, but the direction to lawsuits are going it'll be self-evident.
Daddy Get The Shotgun!
A newspaper is a publisher. They decide what you see, and can be sued I’m pretty sure. I would liken it to more along the lines of they are trying to pretend they are like a physical printing press, a tool. When in reality they are not, a press won’t stop you from printing whatever you feel like, but a newspaper company will. Maybe I’m out to lunch, I won’t pretend I’m an expert.
Edit - I misread what you posted, I thought you said a newspaper was not a publisher.
It means Twitter et all can't be held accountable for anything posted on their site while sec 230 stands.
Uggg with these Q people already
Section 230 was meant to protect those who created "public forums" from liability for claims made by others. The primary purpose was so that you couldn't sue a newsstand owner for the contents of the newspapers he was selling. They're not creating any content; they're merely a middleman.
However, over the years the rule has been increasingly abused by social media companies who now act as publishers instead of "public forum" facilitators, manufacturing their own lies, picking and choosing what information you are allowed to see and what you are not allowed to see.
This abuse is what has allowed Facebook, Twitter, etc. to become the monsters that they are because when they publish lies, you can't sue them for libel. If Section 230 is altered or repealed, it will allow people to sue for libel and those companies would quickly go bankrupt for their actions. This is the remedy we are looking for.
It is good that Twitter cannot be used for libel. But there needs to be some punishment against Twitter for censoring Hunter's laptop..
Was Twitter engaging in libel by censoring that story? No.
But dropping libel protections might be the only solution because censoring the laptop story is just as egregious as actively libeling someone. In this case Twitter is actively covering up for a criminal treasonous pedophile. It is also actually swinging election results because, believe it or not, we now have millions of idiots coming forward to say that they were not aware of the Biden family crimes and would not have voted for him otherwise.
Libel protections should NOT exist for content creators. It's that simple. Any content you create you're responsible for the libel, if it exists.
Twitter is a content creator. Therefore, they should be responsible for THEIR libel, not ANY libel that exists on their site. This issue is simple.
The issue involving the censoring of posts is MUCH more difficult conceptually. Sites have a right to censor for the sake of common decency (no vulgarity), advocating for violence, threats, off-topic, etc and keep their "public forum" protections. So determining legally, what censoring allows you to keep your Section 230 protection, and what censoring causes you to lose your protection, is not a simple task. These social media companies are masters of censoring under the guise of other just causes, and when they're caught red handed they claim it was just an error. So it's a very complicated legal issue and even harder to enforce properly.
Twitter is a content creator. Therefore, they should be responsible for THEIR libel, not ANY libel that exists on their site. This issue is simple.
Twitter is not a content creator. Twitter provides a platform and users create their own content.
Twitter is supposed to provide a platform just as a bookstore owner provides a platform to sell books. The owner of the store is not a content creator.
Twitter restricting and labeling a Trump tweet as "disputed" is censorship but it is not libelous.
Cannot see any example where Twitter was a content creator that libeled someone...
Although it could be argued that Twitter has crossed the line into being a publisher by restricting Tweets.
In general, communication providers are either treated as an ISP or publisher. An ISP (like a telephone service provider) doesn't regulate what you are allowed to say through it's service and can't be be held legally responsible for anything said through it's service. A publisher can curate content but is held responsible for what is posted on it's site (think CNN or a news site).
Section 230 says the social media platforms can curate content while not being held responsible for the content that remains up.
Did what though?
Further endanger the country. Trump is wrong. Erasing Section 230 would harm us. Here are real solutions.
Apparently, someone needs to tell him that he should, because he didn't wrote 'terminate' rather than 'replace'.
Fuck yes let's go frens
We will see Section 230 terminated by the end of this year. Its time to take these fuckers down
And take ourselves down with the ship.
Every website that hosts user generated content is protected by 230. That includes this one.
"Enforced" 230 is good. Abusing it and pretending to be a platform is bad
Right. It appears he's getting impatient with Ajit and the FCC.
Funny thing about Ajit, remember when all the left wing redditors were going off their nut about Net Neutrality and that shit was repealed two years ago and nothing changed with speeds, in fact, speeds got faster.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
Terminate it now, once election is over reinstate it with some reforms.
All big tech should be terminated tbh, fucking commies
Tech/social media is totally killing our society. Watch the social dilemma on netflix if you get a chance
Take huge publicly held corporations in the sights, but Trump is wrong. Erasing Section 230 would harm us. Here are real solutions.
Art of the deal, fren. Ask big, negotiate from there.
Yeah. It needs to have its language clarified so that the lawyers at these Tech Giants can't keep slipping through loopholes anymore. The key issue is the "or otherwise objectionable content" that is included in the acceptable-to-censor statement (the list cites pornography, gore, murder, etc.) Having that allows them to claim anything as falling into "otherwise objectionable" and get away with it.
Starting with a big ask/threat, maybe? Threaten to get rid of it to make Big Tech panic (more than they already are), work something out that ends with clarifications and strict enforcement of 230 protection requirements.
No, let them deal with the mess they asked for
Exactly right. Trump is wrong. Erasing Section 230 would harm us. Here are real solutions.
This election has been called differently!
National Security. Section 230. My God. He is showing his big brass balls today.
Warning Bells are ringing....Big tech are about to get fucked.
Ooooh boy. Let’s fucking go.
“Bu-but if conservatives don’t like getting censored on Twitter and YouTube, they can go make their own platform then!” “SHUTDOWN BITCHUTE BAN PARLOR...”
Existing proposals would harm us. Here are real solutions.
Ending section 230 would shut down at least domestic alternative social media. Without section 230, he who has the most lawyers wins. That isn't us.
What is stopping alternative platforms is banks and payment processors.
FAGGOT!
NOW
Do it now!!!
Get ready, get ready, weird accidentally outages will be their excuse.
Jack and the Zucc are trying to get the fuck out of dodge RIGHT NOW, you had better believe it. Holy shit. Holy shit.
Sometimes, you see little things that seem to be about something else, but might be something much bigger. Like this:
https://twitter.com/Veronica/status/1330941145396826112
Veronica is a BIG tech lefty. She may have been a canary in this coalmine in this instance.
Tech CEOS fleeing SF. Huh. Nah, can't mean anything. Nah.
He’s taking off the gloves now.
Pissed off GEOTUS is the best type of GEOTUS.
Shit is going down. Grabbing popcorn. 🍿
oh shit it's starting to happen
Framing Twitter’s bullshit flags as national security threats. Brilliant!
Everyone freaking out about it being reformed not terminated... <yawn>... this is how Trump opens a negotiation. He always overshoots with the expectation of meeting in the middle. This is the Art of the Deal.
This.
Word.
Yes—they cant’s have it both ways. They are publishers. This censorship is unconstitutional. Let’s EO those Bay Area traitors.
And let’s follow it up with that EO from 9/12/18/
Can anything be done immediately? Will it?
Pretty sure lots can be done, is trump willing to go there? Not sure lol
Well he has the executive order he passed in 2018 other than that it could be a lengthy process that would have to pass Congress.
Actually, some Democrats are in favor of amending/removing section 230.
REPEAL 230!!! DO IT, GEOTUS!!! SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
DO IT NOW MR. PRESIDENT. PLEEEEAAAAASE
I'M GONNA COOOOOM
Ho Lee Fuk
Beeg Dik Don
Sum Ting Wong?
Sounds good to me,, considering this is war. Remember Lincoln had to lay down some whoop ass on the fake news media?
Congress would have to take it up and pass it. Senate would have to agree and approve it. Send to POTUS desk to be signed. Art of the deal. When your aiming for the moon. Shoot for the stars
They would have to propose a bill to destroy the bill..... like the 18th ammendment. Laws work the same. You have to overwrite (read: make new law that neuters the old law, so future generations know it has already been tried and failed) the old laws to remove their legitimacy.
11:11 magic
The best defence is an offence! Let's get this shit done sir.
We know you were wishing them good luck for what's about to come! I'm sure you reminded America is with them!
Big tech are 100% traitors. They need broken up and disassembled.
11:11 make a wish! I wish for Section 230 to be repealed! DO IT GEOTUS!
God he has really become unleashed and I love it.
Never mind release the Kraken.
Release the TRUMP!!!!
Uhoh national security card inc. prepare your sides bois.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
In the past I've generally agreed with the EFF, but not on this issue. I simply think corporations and media companies should have less freedom on the Internet, not more, especially if they take user content.
Of course I don't think repealing 230 is the right way forward either, but it sounds like the President feels he doesn't have any choice right now.
Section 230: giving Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and others the ability to censor us and the POTUS (and others """aLt-RiGhT FiGuReS""").
What big tech did was treason
We're goin' to the fire, bud.
It's time to kick the tires and light the fires.
Oh, please.
Make it so, Dad
Tellin aint sellin. Do it.