Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
He needs to just declare a national security emergency and seize Facebook and Twitter. Let the military moderate. He would be 100% right to do so and may prevent a civil war. We have 2 versions of facts right now and everyone in the country needs to be on the same page the next two weeks. We can work on section 230 later
Everyone freaking out about 230 being terminated instead of reformed... <sips coffee>... 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.
If Trump is using nation security as a reason to do something, there will be no "Art of the Deal" involved. He will be using Presidential power to eliminate 230 or parts of it because it is a threat to national security (e.g. China has undue influence over Big Tech players, which is likely why they are waging information warfare on the American public).
It's also the effect they have on the competition, similar to anti-trust. Twitter/FB/Youtube/Google are so big that it's virtually impossible to compete. When they decide to "deplatform" someone it affects that person's ability to speak because there are no comparable alternatives.
Yes, ....just like North Korea. Make em stand about a foot away from the barrel of a 155mm howitzer hahaha. Poof! Pink mist... hahaha. I bet they would prefer that over the old wood chipper squad.
This is in no way low energy but why didn't he do this, say, last year? We would not be in this mess now.
Dictator vibes.
Trump is like Lawful Good and the way Lawful Good beats Neutral Evil is by waiting for the latter to break some obvious laws and then going for justice.
The moderates that you still need for elections would see you as a dictator which isn’t a good look, especially when the people you’re taking over just got done calling you a dictator. Trust me, I practically jerk off to the idea of the military walking in and either arresting or shooting these fuckers on site. But unfortunately it will probably remain a fantasy.
Unless we have officially (unofficial death squads) like a reversed of stinking democratic party Antifa/BLM doing almost peaceful protests in scumbags offices!!
President Trump is a high-roller. He takes great risks, to go after great rewards.
If he had, in any way, messed with social or mainstream media, they would've skewered him before the point was made: "See? He is a tyrant/dictator!!" By allowing many multiple conservatives and non-conservatives, and even established news organizations like the NY Post to be squelched or banned, it makes the point directly obvious to The People that they're *ALL *shills for the Left. In essence, like for the 9000th time, President Trump psychs the Left into do his bidding for him.
If he did it last year, there would have been tons of pushback from NPCs, soft headed libertarians, ect. Now that their mask has totally fallen off and everyone can see these companies for what they always really were, there will be way more support for a measure like that.
Just because Lincoln did it? Although I think Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents there are plenty of things the founding fathers would have disagreed with him on.
Just because Lincoln did something doesn't automatically make it admirable
And I never said it was admirable by any stretch. I think our founding fathers had a lot of moral shortfalls. Those shortfalls don't by any stretch denigrate the good they did, but, they did exist.
Military moderation doesn’t get rid of the problem though. They shouldn’t be moderating at all unless it’s maybe death or adult content. Ultimately people need to quit using these dumb services though. Everyone get your damn families off of these dumb ass services. - Signed all of us
Yes the only reason to have military moderating is to take down illegal content. Someone has to do that job. It would also only be temporary through January 20
Yes. People who downvoted are retarded. It is DEFINITELY a form of censorship, especially since "not being a Trump supporter" is a condition the results in being deported. That IS censorship, it's just in our favor.
If you limit access it’s a bit different. It no longer becomes a public square. If something is “open to the public” you can’t limit what is said like we do. 230 protects this site as it does all web sites.
Don't we? Trump SupportersThis is The Donald. Our community is a high-energy Trump rally. There are no exceptions.
If facebook/twitter had a liberal rule 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this boat. We are not meant to be a site "open to the public" it's always been clearly stated.
We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
I agree this is how 230 should be handled as written. I do wonder tho, as helpful as the Donald has been, the destruction caused by echo chamber like Twitter and reddit is considerable. Are the echo chambers worth it? Would it be better to dissalow political censorship across the board? It is atleast worth considering.
This is exactly why we need to change section 230.
Personally, I think that the major change that needs to happen is that very large websites with open membership needs to be treated as the public square. That any legal content must be allowed in a non-discriminatory fashion. Sections of that website can moderate for content, legality, and whether it is germane and constructive to the conversation, but the standards of moderation must be documented and carried out in a good faith manner.
Failure to do so risks civil fines or loss of 230 protections.
Section 230 is what creates the distinction between platforms and publishers. Repealing it would make it so all websites are treated as publishers and can be sued for the content that their users post. TDW would definitely be sued out of existence for some of the content on this site.
PLATFORM: anybody can say anything. We just host the content. All speech is the authors'. You can sue them, not us. NO MODERATION.
PUBLISHER: We CHOOSE (aka moderate aka speech codes) what is said on our platform. Others speak here, but both them and us are responsible and liable and can be sued.
In this case, thedonald.win would have to make a choice. Eliminate deportations (we could still click it, as users of the site, and it could be reported (100 people reported for deportation) but the site would have to leave it up or else it's moderating and libel for speech.
Or, stay the same, deport speech that doesnt support Pres Trump and accept liability to be sued. This might be viable.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Declare yourself a publisher, be liable. Be user generated, you're good. You can sue individuals, sure but you track down an anon user on some random forum for calling you a cuck and sue them.
It seems there should be a difference between a site that has a clearly stated universally applied purpose and one that pretends to be neutral and then blocks stuff from people it doesn’t like Willy nilly. Nobody imagines they’re getting news here that is totally unbiased. People are made to believe that Twitter and fb are NBC etc unbiased
I think repealing 230 suits big tech just fine, because they have developed the tech to censor at the rate required by our level of connection. There is just too much content to keep on top of without the automation and AI that they have developed in large part with military industrial complex. Repeal 230 and now TD is responsible for posts calling for jack'n'berg to face a firing squad. Take away 230 and maybe .wins are gone too?
Big tech are (currently) private companies. But they have come to serve the purpose of what should be a publicly available platform. That in and of itself isnt really the problem though... the problem is at the same time as wielding all that power, collectively they've become ideologically hypnotized and basically mass hysteria rules the day. Actually... I guess the real problem is that big tech is being used by military industrial complex tech to instill the mass hysteria... fuck.
I agree with you dude, repealing 230 doesn't seem to do anything but cause harm from my perspective. Even amending 230 to exclude dishonest platforms like Twitter doesn't really cut it. I've always assumed the social giants are prepped to go into full audit mode. The moment 230 goes away Twitter/Facebook etc go full communism and purges the posting capabilities of regular people from the platforms, or atleast anyone Google analytics even hints has conservative leanings. Purging 230 would begin a new draconian Era in the info wars. We need direct targeted action against those that claim to be unbiased but create automated, enforced, biased, information bubbles.
I like thie financial idea a lot, and I agree some amount of cencorship is expected (death threats, fire in a theater etc). I still think therw is acencorship angle to pursue, maybe in the form of lawsuits claiming automated electioneering as fraudulent campaign contributions or something to that effect
Here's what Dan Bongino had said back in September. Remember he is part owner in Parler and Rumble and I'm sure has great legal advice. He basically said removing 230 would actually lead to more silencing of conservative voices, because platforms would simply not allow any comments or discussion on any posts to avoid being sued. So social media would basically turn into digital newspapers with no discussion
Applies to companies owning platforms with more than 10M active users per month
Sounds like a great way to have certain sites like Twitter reducing "active membership" to blue checkmarks while the rest of us become mere viewers unable to submit content.
The companies you're attempting to work against have legions of lawyers whose job it is to make sure their company never has to follow the law as intended by exploiting the law as written. There won't be an easy solution.
I'm not sure whether paying 250 per post is actually different from ideological censorship.
Maybe the difference is whether your organization portrays itself as a public utility or a topic specific social club. Perhaps if the tos specifies the limits to speech (which the Donald does) that is sufficient... So if twitter can explain their policy they can keep 230 protections but they would be held to it. I like the ability to pay to dispute, but there should be a penalty for being found in violation, at a minimum you get your fee refunded.
Big tech has the capacity to scan and remove vast quantities of content. The tech is proprietary and likely expensive to license. Sites like this would be limited by the capacity to remove content fast enough and to litigate to keep posts it wants. Likely to run out of funding eventually. Or have to change so much it basically isnt .win anymore.
If 230 went away, this site wouldn't be needed. Twitter and Facebook are only liberal echo chambers because of conservative censorship. They silence the voices that dont promote their fucked up agenda in an effort to appear to be the majority. It's just more gaslighting.
If they didn't censor, those platforms would be overun with common sense and reason because we are and always have been the majority. They can never win on merit so they have to find other ways. Why do you think their news sites don't allow comments and polls anymore? Because when they put out a bullshit article or story, people called them out on it. Their agendas could never win in an open forum of ideas. But if you close the forum and silence dissent, it becomes easy to pretend you hold the moral highground.
After years of people rejecting their bullshit at every turn, they've become increasingly adept at covering up the smell.
A complete repeal of 230 would in no way encourage social giants to curb their censorship, it would have the opposite effect. The only reason social giants feign openness is to retain 230 protection. Without 230 I don't see any viable startegy outside of them going into full audit mode and embracing being a publisher. Getting rid of 230 is a liscence for these companies to go full 1984. At the same time without 230 I expect the left to weaponize the new found litigious internet, forums become a thing of the past, even small fun ones for games. Alll it takes is one death threat and one lawsuit and most forums become unviable. Repealing 230 forces every moderator on the internet to go into full audit mode, no smale site can withstand the pressure. it will socialize communication on the internet. What we need is a minor 230 reform that fully defines what "offensive" content is so these giants can't use that language to wrap up anything they don't like and retain legal immunity.
I still think this place isnoverall a net positive so I don’t really want it to go away exactly. Social media just has too much extra noise to get distracted from while this place is SOLELY focused on Trump and the election crisis.
He's forcing these goat-worshipping tranny jannies to officially "identify" as publishers overnight. And they will try to, because they'll have no other choice.
Once they switch to "publisher", two things happen: their stocks drop out and then, without the protections they currently enjoy, they crumble.
Getting rid of 230 would be a disaster. It needs to be correctly applied to Twatter and Tardbook (as they ARE publishers) rather than just getting rid of it entirely.
230 must remain unless the exec order includes temp protections for platforms that don't act like publisher. That said we need to go into this knowing that if Biden steals it the change will be weaponised and protections removed. We can't let that stop us, but keep it in mind.
But what does that make TD by comparison? We highly moderate who and what gets posted here, in an obviously biased way. We post a lot of very amount of inflammatory stuff. Instead of the worthless act of having to sue random TD posters, could they not just go go after the site owners and effectively shut us down as well?
No need to terminate. Once they start editorializing, it does not apply. Adding some notification that something is disputed is editorializing. They have added content to what was posted. Preventing a post that does not violate their terms and conditions is stepping into the the role of editor. Someone, like the campaign should sue. Or any politician who was banned or shadow banned.
This. 230 is a “self defense” type clause. It can only be invoke if sued. It doesn’t give these sites privileges, it’s designed to offer protection from prosecution (similar to self defense) if they are truly acting like a platform. It requires someone to sue them, and for them to invoke it as a defense.
no, there would be no social media anymore if 230 goes away, it would destroy them completely, which is a fair deal in my opinion even if everyone else suffers from it, they will suffer the most (that if we termitated it rather than reforming it)
100%. We all live under the same law. If they’re doing communist things they should be punished.
It’s time to punish all media and social media groups that aren’t honest and unbiased. Trump would’ve gotten 100,000,000 votes if it wasn’t for their lies.
Forcing media to be "unbiased" is too vague. Simply having a difference of opinion can be considered bias and it is what makes freedom of the press so essential.
This site is clearly biased and in some cases can be considered a publisher, but that's what attracted to me to it in the first place. When seeing every MSM group repeating the same perspective I wanted to test that perspective with the opposite argument. Op-eds should be inherently biased and that's what makes them useful.
230 should end the instant a company begins censoring people. At that point they are a publisher because they have taken control of the content of their website.
Then this site would be taken down almost immediately, because lefty retards are censored here.
Think about the full ramifications, not just how it will hurt facebook or twitter.
The issue with 230 is it uses a broad word like "offensive" to describe what kind of content can be removed. We need clear legal and limited examples of what can be removed, and requirements atleast that a forum who cencors thing outside of those limits clearly states it in their mission statement (like td.win)
I like it as a more target option, but I'm skeptical as to whether it would do anything to help the specific issue of overzealous electioneering cencorship.
It's not "stupid." Section 230 is worded very badly. It's too vague and allows them to get away with any censorship they want, while still pretending to be an unbiased platform.
It won't, those giants will thrive while platforms like td.win die. 230 is meant to protect forums owners from legal ramifications for what is said by users. Remove 230 and an army of leftist lawyers will start scrubbing freedom off the internet while the socialism media giants go full 1984 and embrace the automatic audit age. Without 230 all public squares on the internet must be run like a publisher. It would be an absolute disaster. Then imagine Biden gets in, and pumps some meth into our hate speach laws. That sounds like paving the way for their endgame. No the issue with 230 is that it broadly defines that moderators can remove "offensive" or "objectionable" content (I forget wich word is used) and still be considered non editorial. We need a clear legal and limited definition of the kind of content that is allowed to be removed by moderators, and then a mandate for transparency if a platform decides to moderate more broadly than those limitations. That would be a good start. We want to force these companies to either be impartial public squares OR clearly define their political biases. We also need some serious regulation to limit the scope and add transparency to ai moderation and content selection. Ai cencorship and ai suppression or promotion of content is defining this information civil war from the shadows and it needs the light of day. I understand your desire to just wipe out these companies but we need to protect freedom first, free speach is the light that shines in the darkness.
I think the right way to do it is to separate websites into a few categories that are regulated differently. Sites like this that are explicitly biased to promote a certain viewpoint should be allowed to operate with a prominent disclosure. Small sites should all be exempt. The issue is big sites that are basically acting as a shadow government that can destroy people's lives with a click. There is no such thing as unbiased. Those kinds of sites that cater to the country as a whole, and not a specific subgroup of people, have to be regulated and inspected regularly.
As it's written and supposed to be enforced, it protects platforms from being responsible for what the people on it say. "The views and opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions and views of us" kind of deal that you hear before a lot of interviews and such. And this is a good thing. If someone came in here and started posting actually illegal stuff, they'd be on the hook, not the win.
As it's being enforced, though, is a very big problem. Places like facebook and twitter are enjoying all the protection of claiming to be platforms, while also exercising editorial privilege and only allowing things that comports to their views and opinions.
In short: nuking it from orbit would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What actually needs to be done is to strip twitter and facebook of their 230 protections, while allowing places that actually allow free speech to continue being open platforms.
Getting rid of 230 would be a disaster. It needs to be altered, not removed. There is proposed legislation to target big tech "new town square" parts of the internet, without 230, small websites wouldn't be able to endure the inevitable, unending deluge of frivolous lawsuits from snowflakes with money.
I don't think it needs to be terminated. Those horrible sites (twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.) just need to be categorized as publishers (which they absolutely are) so that they can no longer enjoy the protections they currently have.
I support people THROWING all the RINOs out on their toxic asses - and bringing in a fresh Congress who supports the American people instead of Dorsey and Zuckerberg.
The Constitution says this is THEIR JOB not the President's job.
This is our fucking fault.
We are the assholes who re-elected these jerkoffs even after they failed to vote a penny for the Trump wall.
Look at Miss Lindsay fist-bumping Kamala Harris on the floor of the Senate - just got re-elected with a big majority,
Sorry to piss in the punch bowl, but the truth is the truth.
However, Trump does need to take emergency action to get the FBI to round up the election fraudsters - otherwise, none of this matters.
No! Strongly no. This is exactly what these tech companies want. Fuck off if you're gonna call me a shill. Think about it for just a second.
With AI, which these companies possess, they CAN moderate posts and protect themselves from litigation. Bitchute cannot. Parler cannot.
It is going to nuke alt tech and fuck us in the process. If this site is legally liable for posts on it, trolls are going to swarm this place and overwhelm the mods. The same thing WILL happen with all other alt platforms.
No, it just needs to be ENFORCED. Reclassify Facebook and their ilk like the censorious publishers they are. Keep the 230 protections for non-editorializing 'town square' platforms.
No I don't. If we get rid of section 230 then I think we can say goodbye to this site. It is what protects the creators from the crazy stuff we say or the illegal stuff that the shills come in and say.
Actually this is a terrible idea but I upvoted anyway. Big tech just needs to be redefined when they either actively or automatically via AI censor and editorialize.
He can't though. If it's a law he can't stop the law by passing an EO. Dems don't give a shit about it but I am not about to let those fuckers get away with using EOs to repeal legislation in the future just for a quick gratification now.
Obama's DACA is not law and if Roberts didn't have someone threatening to release his Epstein Island Adventure tapes he wouldn't have ruled that a president needs a good reason to undo an EO of his predecessor.
DACA is "presidential legislation" but it still was not an EO that repealed a law.
No, it will hurt the small developers the most. they can't developed AI to moderate content like FB or Twitter. The big company's can, enforce it instead, they must choose, platform or publisher.
Section 230 has been so badly abused that it needs to go, and these platforms can then seek new legislation that will allow them some protection as IMO a platform that's acting in good faith should be immune to being sued if it's an actual free speech area.
Otherwise... let the lawsuits sue Facebook and Twitter into the ground.
Whatever he needs to do at this point in time to get the job done. Things can be finessed after when he begins his second term. They must never be allowed to become the dictators and censors of free speech. Did you all see that post about what the constitution might mean by the word Press [hint they weren't talking about newsmonger!]
I'd rather have the people rise up and demand the states have a constitutional convention and give us a digital bill of rights which guarantees the BoR to the internet. Ownership of property (no ability to ban you from games/music purchased), free speech, and the like.
My personal opinion is that Trump should NOT terminate Section 230 as a sweeping measure.
If possible, he should repeal it from specific companies, like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, by identifying and declaring them as "publisher".
Knowing how the dnccp operates the collateral damage will be weaponised against average people running small forums to Jin up rhetoric. I had been hoping for a targeted solution not a blowout. In my understanding the intent of 230 was to protect small forums from being prosecuted for things their users said on their platform. With 230 gone, leftist will flood this site and anything they don't like with all sorts of illage shit and those running the site and many others will be dragged into court.
No. A revision that CLEARLY draws a line in the sand for companies like FBook, google, etc as to how they can INSTANTLY avail themselves of such judicial protections would be great. These companies should not be allowed 230 protections. They have violated that protection law.
He should round all these commie assholes up, for purposes of national security, make socialism and/or any variation thereof a criminal offence, disband the Democrap Party and ship them out to Guantanamo... maybe the following day he could tell Chanel Rion at OANN "I lost all my Commies in a helicoptering accident..."
He needs to just declare a national security emergency and seize Facebook and Twitter. Let the military moderate. He would be 100% right to do so and may prevent a civil war. We have 2 versions of facts right now and everyone in the country needs to be on the same page the next two weeks. We can work on section 230 later
I bet you could raise substantial money by raffling tickets off to be in the firing squad.
Section 230 should not exist for any company that averages over X-million views by American each day.
That fixes the issue of small sites being impacted and fucks the large scale censorship machines.
*I don't know what the real number should be to achieve the desired results. Any marketing guys here have an idea?
Everyone freaking out about 230 being terminated instead of reformed... <sips coffee>... 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.
Scott Adams has entered the chat
If Trump is using nation security as a reason to do something, there will be no "Art of the Deal" involved. He will be using Presidential power to eliminate 230 or parts of it because it is a threat to national security (e.g. China has undue influence over Big Tech players, which is likely why they are waging information warfare on the American public).
Oooh. I like. Underrated comment.
This is good.
It's also the effect they have on the competition, similar to anti-trust. Twitter/FB/Youtube/Google are so big that it's virtually impossible to compete. When they decide to "deplatform" someone it affects that person's ability to speak because there are no comparable alternatives.
Diamond VIPs get to join the squad
What are you thoughts on a artillery squad instead
There are a lot of woodworking types that would LOVE a large order of trebuchets .. just sayin
Nothing would filly Hart with more joy than seeing Jack dorsey flying 300m into the air
Yes, ....just like North Korea. Make em stand about a foot away from the barrel of a 155mm howitzer hahaha. Poof! Pink mist... hahaha. I bet they would prefer that over the old wood chipper squad.
Borrow the old French guillotine and have public executions like in the 1778-79 french revolution!
Borrow? No. Build. There should be an American made guillotine in every state capital on Saturday.
now I like that ideal......
Hell yeah! Best idea of All time. I'll even bring my own pew pews!
Nah, give those bastards the chair and the irony that they're killed by what makes their companies work.
um ok
sir this is a burger king
please take it outside
Made me laugh
It’s been done before in times of war. Hollywood was controlled by the military during the ww2
This is in no way low energy but why didn't he do this, say, last year? We would not be in this mess now.
He must have had at least some level of awareness that his supporters were all being silenced, in preparation for what was to come.
Dictator vibes.
Trump is like Lawful Good and the way Lawful Good beats Neutral Evil is by waiting for the latter to break some obvious laws and then going for justice.
He's Batman. He said so.
The moderates that you still need for elections would see you as a dictator which isn’t a good look, especially when the people you’re taking over just got done calling you a dictator. Trust me, I practically jerk off to the idea of the military walking in and either arresting or shooting these fuckers on site. But unfortunately it will probably remain a fantasy.
Unless we have officially (unofficial death squads) like a reversed of stinking democratic party Antifa/BLM doing almost peaceful protests in scumbags offices!!
President Trump is a high-roller. He takes great risks, to go after great rewards.
If he had, in any way, messed with social or mainstream media, they would've skewered him before the point was made: "See? He is a tyrant/dictator!!" By allowing many multiple conservatives and non-conservatives, and even established news organizations like the NY Post to be squelched or banned, it makes the point directly obvious to The People that they're *ALL *shills for the Left. In essence, like for the 9000th time, President Trump psychs the Left into do his bidding for him.
Scorched Earth. They are trying to actively steal an election, not just put out or disseminate fake news.
If he did it last year, there would have been tons of pushback from NPCs, soft headed libertarians, ect. Now that their mask has totally fallen off and everyone can see these companies for what they always really were, there will be way more support for a measure like that.
Controlled by Chyna!
Were they controlled by force or by choice?
They are already being controlled by the CIA. What's the difference?
Any worse than his predecessors using the deep state to control info?
In that case... let's just let a bunch of faggots at the CIA and FBI run them.. as well as all the TV networks....
Really? How do you think the founding fathers would feel about a standing military controlling what amounts to the press?
Most probably wouldn't mind, they hated the press with as much vitriol or more.
They hated standing militaries and specifically enshrined freedom of the press in the bill of rights. But you think they wouldn't mind?
Considering Lincoln jailed journalists and banned anti war newspapers, is say yes.
Just because Lincoln did it? Although I think Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents there are plenty of things the founding fathers would have disagreed with him on.
Just because Lincoln did something doesn't automatically make it admirable
Jefferson hated the press too.
And I never said it was admirable by any stretch. I think our founding fathers had a lot of moral shortfalls. Those shortfalls don't by any stretch denigrate the good they did, but, they did exist.
He already did, i. The EO signed in 2018, this election is a state of emergency
Military moderation doesn’t get rid of the problem though. They shouldn’t be moderating at all unless it’s maybe death or adult content. Ultimately people need to quit using these dumb services though. Everyone get your damn families off of these dumb ass services. - Signed all of us
Yes the only reason to have military moderating is to take down illegal content. Someone has to do that job. It would also only be temporary through January 20
I would support that!!
If 230 goes away, this web site will be shut down immediately
They will never deal, you're insane if you think that's a viable option. Only force will kill the propaganda.
Ooh la la
They are prepared to weaponize 230 whether it is intact or repealed. They have no right to be protected under 230 as it is written.
If that actually happened i think the best solution would be to completely shut down the site until things are fixed.
This isn't acting as a publisher so it won't.
Isn't deporting a type of censorship?
Yes. People who downvoted are retarded. It is DEFINITELY a form of censorship, especially since "not being a Trump supporter" is a condition the results in being deported. That IS censorship, it's just in our favor.
How's that different from any social club that has membership requirements?
Ex: A Ford Mustang social club that requires you to have a Ford Mustang of any year or model to be part of the club.
If you limit access it’s a bit different. It no longer becomes a public square. If something is “open to the public” you can’t limit what is said like we do. 230 protects this site as it does all web sites.
Don't we?
Trump Supporters This is The Donald. Our community is a high-energy Trump rally. There are no exceptions.
If facebook/twitter had a liberal rule 15 years ago they wouldn't be in this boat. We are not meant to be a site "open to the public" it's always been clearly stated.
We do allow access to anyone but there are privileges to post. Anyone can view any of the content but to publish content you need to follow rules. It is important that the rules are clear and stated and apply to everyone equally. No one on fb can post pornography. Clear rule. On Twitter tho some people get banned for mentioning an ever evolving list of things and others can mention it and be fine. They are not stated as being forums for one side. Those kind of differences can and should be defined as subtleties in law. I’m fine w social media deciding and stating it is for the left upfront and then others wouldn’t join, we’d have our own. It should be clear though and not pretend to be neutral. That is the key. People think it’s neutral and so believe their news there’s is neutral. We don’t feign neutrality.
I agree this is how 230 should be handled as written. I do wonder tho, as helpful as the Donald has been, the destruction caused by echo chamber like Twitter and reddit is considerable. Are the echo chambers worth it? Would it be better to dissalow political censorship across the board? It is atleast worth considering.
Right. The problem is that when you start having laws you very quickly trip over 1a issues. Also lawyers will find loopholes.
I don’t know. I don’t have an answer mind you. I just say it’s problematic.
This is exactly why we need to change section 230.
Personally, I think that the major change that needs to happen is that very large websites with open membership needs to be treated as the public square. That any legal content must be allowed in a non-discriminatory fashion. Sections of that website can moderate for content, legality, and whether it is germane and constructive to the conversation, but the standards of moderation must be documented and carried out in a good faith manner.
Failure to do so risks civil fines or loss of 230 protections.
Yeah, we'd have to become a chaotic free-for-all like the chans in that case.
Its user generated content thus they're not acting as a publisher. It's that simple.
Section 230 is what creates the distinction between platforms and publishers. Repealing it would make it so all websites are treated as publishers and can be sued for the content that their users post. TDW would definitely be sued out of existence for some of the content on this site.
every site is a publisher IF they moderate.
You can do one or the other:
PLATFORM: anybody can say anything. We just host the content. All speech is the authors'. You can sue them, not us. NO MODERATION.
PUBLISHER: We CHOOSE (aka moderate aka speech codes) what is said on our platform. Others speak here, but both them and us are responsible and liable and can be sued.
In this case, thedonald.win would have to make a choice. Eliminate deportations (we could still click it, as users of the site, and it could be reported (100 people reported for deportation) but the site would have to leave it up or else it's moderating and libel for speech.
Or, stay the same, deport speech that doesnt support Pres Trump and accept liability to be sued. This might be viable.
If that is the case then forum's never existed prior to 1996
I think you don't know what you're talking about. Declare yourself a publisher, be liable. Be user generated, you're good. You can sue individuals, sure but you track down an anon user on some random forum for calling you a cuck and sue them.
We will see.
Not true at all
why?
Sec 230 protects site owners from what their users post. Without it, all posts are considered the owners, making them liable.
It only gives them those protections when they act as a neutral platform. Which they don't and arguably never have.
Yeah but TDW is not neutral. We have a deport button.
Everyone does.
This is about editing content.
It seems there should be a difference between a site that has a clearly stated universally applied purpose and one that pretends to be neutral and then blocks stuff from people it doesn’t like Willy nilly. Nobody imagines they’re getting news here that is totally unbiased. People are made to believe that Twitter and fb are NBC etc unbiased
I think repealing 230 suits big tech just fine, because they have developed the tech to censor at the rate required by our level of connection. There is just too much content to keep on top of without the automation and AI that they have developed in large part with military industrial complex. Repeal 230 and now TD is responsible for posts calling for jack'n'berg to face a firing squad. Take away 230 and maybe .wins are gone too?
Big tech are (currently) private companies. But they have come to serve the purpose of what should be a publicly available platform. That in and of itself isnt really the problem though... the problem is at the same time as wielding all that power, collectively they've become ideologically hypnotized and basically mass hysteria rules the day. Actually... I guess the real problem is that big tech is being used by military industrial complex tech to instill the mass hysteria... fuck.
Who knows. I'm just a canadian in canada.
I agree with you dude, repealing 230 doesn't seem to do anything but cause harm from my perspective. Even amending 230 to exclude dishonest platforms like Twitter doesn't really cut it. I've always assumed the social giants are prepped to go into full audit mode. The moment 230 goes away Twitter/Facebook etc go full communism and purges the posting capabilities of regular people from the platforms, or atleast anyone Google analytics even hints has conservative leanings. Purging 230 would begin a new draconian Era in the info wars. We need direct targeted action against those that claim to be unbiased but create automated, enforced, biased, information bubbles.
Hmm would maybe objectionable should be more clearly defined? That might be affective and alot less catastrophic than an outright liquidation of 230.
I like thie financial idea a lot, and I agree some amount of cencorship is expected (death threats, fire in a theater etc). I still think therw is acencorship angle to pursue, maybe in the form of lawsuits claiming automated electioneering as fraudulent campaign contributions or something to that effect
Here's what Dan Bongino had said back in September. Remember he is part owner in Parler and Rumble and I'm sure has great legal advice. He basically said removing 230 would actually lead to more silencing of conservative voices, because platforms would simply not allow any comments or discussion on any posts to avoid being sued. So social media would basically turn into digital newspapers with no discussion
Exactly, FB and Google lawyers would destroy smaller companies before anyone else.
Anyone deplatformed can sue them for the wages they lost from being deplatformed.
That's like 1000 suits instantly.
Web site owners will become liable for anything posted here
Sounds like a great way to have certain sites like Twitter reducing "active membership" to blue checkmarks while the rest of us become mere viewers unable to submit content.
The companies you're attempting to work against have legions of lawyers whose job it is to make sure their company never has to follow the law as intended by exploiting the law as written. There won't be an easy solution.
But then the sites like gab that actually don't censor ideologically will take on all Twitter's users who want to participate.
I'm not sure whether paying 250 per post is actually different from ideological censorship.
Maybe the difference is whether your organization portrays itself as a public utility or a topic specific social club. Perhaps if the tos specifies the limits to speech (which the Donald does) that is sufficient... So if twitter can explain their policy they can keep 230 protections but they would be held to it. I like the ability to pay to dispute, but there should be a penalty for being found in violation, at a minimum you get your fee refunded.
Why not just make ‘political affiliation’ a protected class?
If we have protected classes, yes. But do we want them?
Big tech has the capacity to scan and remove vast quantities of content. The tech is proprietary and likely expensive to license. Sites like this would be limited by the capacity to remove content fast enough and to litigate to keep posts it wants. Likely to run out of funding eventually. Or have to change so much it basically isnt .win anymore.
If 230 went away, this site wouldn't be needed. Twitter and Facebook are only liberal echo chambers because of conservative censorship. They silence the voices that dont promote their fucked up agenda in an effort to appear to be the majority. It's just more gaslighting.
If they didn't censor, those platforms would be overun with common sense and reason because we are and always have been the majority. They can never win on merit so they have to find other ways. Why do you think their news sites don't allow comments and polls anymore? Because when they put out a bullshit article or story, people called them out on it. Their agendas could never win in an open forum of ideas. But if you close the forum and silence dissent, it becomes easy to pretend you hold the moral highground.
After years of people rejecting their bullshit at every turn, they've become increasingly adept at covering up the smell.
Anonymous message boards are still good though imo
A complete repeal of 230 would in no way encourage social giants to curb their censorship, it would have the opposite effect. The only reason social giants feign openness is to retain 230 protection. Without 230 I don't see any viable startegy outside of them going into full audit mode and embracing being a publisher. Getting rid of 230 is a liscence for these companies to go full 1984. At the same time without 230 I expect the left to weaponize the new found litigious internet, forums become a thing of the past, even small fun ones for games. Alll it takes is one death threat and one lawsuit and most forums become unviable. Repealing 230 forces every moderator on the internet to go into full audit mode, no smale site can withstand the pressure. it will socialize communication on the internet. What we need is a minor 230 reform that fully defines what "offensive" content is so these giants can't use that language to wrap up anything they don't like and retain legal immunity.
I still think this place isnoverall a net positive so I don’t really want it to go away exactly. Social media just has too much extra noise to get distracted from while this place is SOLELY focused on Trump and the election crisis.
He can take away section 230 protection from monopolistic actors. Doesn't have to go after the little guy.
Correct answer. They are publishers and not platforms.
He's forcing these goat-worshipping tranny jannies to officially "identify" as publishers overnight. And they will try to, because they'll have no other choice.
Once they switch to "publisher", two things happen: their stocks drop out and then, without the protections they currently enjoy, they crumble.
that would be amazing
Don't get my hopes up pede.
Yes. If they’re fact checking the user generated content they become the publishers.
Getting rid of 230 would be a disaster. It needs to be correctly applied to Twatter and Tardbook (as they ARE publishers) rather than just getting rid of it entirely.
Yes the problem is purely a lack of enforcement. He just needs to build a fire under the FCC I guess.
Seems to me he could have worked more on doing it earlier, don't know if delaying is part of a strategy. There has been plenty of evidence
230 must remain unless the exec order includes temp protections for platforms that don't act like publisher. That said we need to go into this knowing that if Biden steals it the change will be weaponised and protections removed. We can't let that stop us, but keep it in mind.
Except Publish has to mean NO MODERATION.
But what does that make TD by comparison? We highly moderate who and what gets posted here, in an obviously biased way. We post a lot of very amount of inflammatory stuff. Instead of the worthless act of having to sue random TD posters, could they not just go go after the site owners and effectively shut us down as well?
No need to terminate. Once they start editorializing, it does not apply. Adding some notification that something is disputed is editorializing. They have added content to what was posted. Preventing a post that does not violate their terms and conditions is stepping into the the role of editor. Someone, like the campaign should sue. Or any politician who was banned or shadow banned.
This ^
He just needs the FCC to do their job
This. 230 is a “self defense” type clause. It can only be invoke if sued. It doesn’t give these sites privileges, it’s designed to offer protection from prosecution (similar to self defense) if they are truly acting like a platform. It requires someone to sue them, and for them to invoke it as a defense.
If 230 goes away, wont they just get rid of every conservative voice?
yes, when the next democrat takes power
Where we are going, we won't need eyes to see
no, there would be no social media anymore if 230 goes away, it would destroy them completely, which is a fair deal in my opinion even if everyone else suffers from it, they will suffer the most (that if we termitated it rather than reforming it)
100%. We all live under the same law. If they’re doing communist things they should be punished. It’s time to punish all media and social media groups that aren’t honest and unbiased. Trump would’ve gotten 100,000,000 votes if it wasn’t for their lies.
It isn't possible, that kind of power structure wouldn't support someone who is honest.
They'll never be honest and unbiased, it benefits them from a business model standpoint to act like this
Forcing media to be "unbiased" is too vague. Simply having a difference of opinion can be considered bias and it is what makes freedom of the press so essential.
This site is clearly biased and in some cases can be considered a publisher, but that's what attracted to me to it in the first place. When seeing every MSM group repeating the same perspective I wanted to test that perspective with the opposite argument. Op-eds should be inherently biased and that's what makes them useful.
Terminating entirely, no. Forcing the DOJ to seek whatever charges and violations they might against Big Tech, absolutely yes.
FEC are looking into clarifying Section 230. Im not sure what progress if any they have made though.
230 should end the instant a company begins censoring people. At that point they are a publisher because they have taken control of the content of their website.
Then we would be gone, since we have a deport button...
Not being a Trump supporter, is grounds for deportation. If that's how it worked, we wouldn't have this site.
If Twitter and Facebook hang, this site is a sacrifice that I am willing to make.
What about millions of other websites, like the one that feeds my family, for example? Should those go away, too? Because they will.
Then this site would be taken down almost immediately, because lefty retards are censored here. Think about the full ramifications, not just how it will hurt facebook or twitter.
Really only agitators are censored here I think. But also at least it's in the tos
They shouldn't have had special protections in the first place.
They technically don't, 230 should not apply to them as written.
The issue with 230 is it uses a broad word like "offensive" to describe what kind of content can be removed. We need clear legal and limited examples of what can be removed, and requirements atleast that a forum who cencors thing outside of those limits clearly states it in their mission statement (like td.win)
Maybe we should just break up Facebook, Twitter, and Google like we did Ma Bell.
I like it as a more target option, but I'm skeptical as to whether it would do anything to help the specific issue of overzealous electioneering cencorship.
I would support president trump terminating karma whoring by EO
Amen
Agreed 100% I tend to think ai moderation as a whole needs to be regulated heavily.
It's not "stupid." Section 230 is worded very badly. It's too vague and allows them to get away with any censorship they want, while still pretending to be an unbiased platform.
But it is at the discretion of the FCC to determine it.. content flags are editorializing and often the flags are factually erroneous.
I guess if he could improve upon 230 and then enforce it, that would be even better
Works for me. If it causes FB, Twitter, and Reddit to shut down, so much the better.
It won't, those giants will thrive while platforms like td.win die. 230 is meant to protect forums owners from legal ramifications for what is said by users. Remove 230 and an army of leftist lawyers will start scrubbing freedom off the internet while the socialism media giants go full 1984 and embrace the automatic audit age. Without 230 all public squares on the internet must be run like a publisher. It would be an absolute disaster. Then imagine Biden gets in, and pumps some meth into our hate speach laws. That sounds like paving the way for their endgame. No the issue with 230 is that it broadly defines that moderators can remove "offensive" or "objectionable" content (I forget wich word is used) and still be considered non editorial. We need a clear legal and limited definition of the kind of content that is allowed to be removed by moderators, and then a mandate for transparency if a platform decides to moderate more broadly than those limitations. That would be a good start. We want to force these companies to either be impartial public squares OR clearly define their political biases. We also need some serious regulation to limit the scope and add transparency to ai moderation and content selection. Ai cencorship and ai suppression or promotion of content is defining this information civil war from the shadows and it needs the light of day. I understand your desire to just wipe out these companies but we need to protect freedom first, free speach is the light that shines in the darkness.
I think the right way to do it is to separate websites into a few categories that are regulated differently. Sites like this that are explicitly biased to promote a certain viewpoint should be allowed to operate with a prominent disclosure. Small sites should all be exempt. The issue is big sites that are basically acting as a shadow government that can destroy people's lives with a click. There is no such thing as unbiased. Those kinds of sites that cater to the country as a whole, and not a specific subgroup of people, have to be regulated and inspected regularly.
230 should only apply to private websites. All publicly traded companies should have the protection revoke.
I would not support it, but let me explain.
As it's written and supposed to be enforced, it protects platforms from being responsible for what the people on it say. "The views and opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions and views of us" kind of deal that you hear before a lot of interviews and such. And this is a good thing. If someone came in here and started posting actually illegal stuff, they'd be on the hook, not the win.
As it's being enforced, though, is a very big problem. Places like facebook and twitter are enjoying all the protection of claiming to be platforms, while also exercising editorial privilege and only allowing things that comports to their views and opinions.
In short: nuking it from orbit would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What actually needs to be done is to strip twitter and facebook of their 230 protections, while allowing places that actually allow free speech to continue being open platforms.
Holy shit no..............
it needs to be REFORMED.
Companies abuse it by hiding behind "good faith moderation". THAT needs to stop.
Without 230 at all, any website would be legally responsible for whatever it's user upload............ This would completely break the internet.
Yes
anyone else have a vision here of Trump driving a cart hitched to Barr and holding a stick out over the front with a drumstick on a string?
Fuck no! This site won't last two weeks if 230 is terminated.
Just make the giant tech companies exempt from it's protections.
Without 230, every website owner is liable for every post made by it's users. Every website you love will disappear overnight.
it's too important to terminate but it needs to be refined to prevent it from being abused by the likes of twitter
Getting rid of 230 would be a disaster. It needs to be altered, not removed. There is proposed legislation to target big tech "new town square" parts of the internet, without 230, small websites wouldn't be able to endure the inevitable, unending deluge of frivolous lawsuits from snowflakes with money.
Just no.
Not terminate but rather eliminate/prosecute/reclassify the bad actors...
Hurts smaller publishers.
I don't think it needs to be terminated. Those horrible sites (twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.) just need to be categorized as publishers (which they absolutely are) so that they can no longer enjoy the protections they currently have.
No I don't support that.
I support people THROWING all the RINOs out on their toxic asses - and bringing in a fresh Congress who supports the American people instead of Dorsey and Zuckerberg.
The Constitution says this is THEIR JOB not the President's job.
This is our fucking fault.
We are the assholes who re-elected these jerkoffs even after they failed to vote a penny for the Trump wall.
Look at Miss Lindsay fist-bumping Kamala Harris on the floor of the Senate - just got re-elected with a big majority,
Sorry to piss in the punch bowl, but the truth is the truth.
However, Trump does need to take emergency action to get the FBI to round up the election fraudsters - otherwise, none of this matters.
No. It's death of Bitchute and other emerging platforms.
No! Strongly no. This is exactly what these tech companies want. Fuck off if you're gonna call me a shill. Think about it for just a second.
With AI, which these companies possess, they CAN moderate posts and protect themselves from litigation. Bitchute cannot. Parler cannot.
It is going to nuke alt tech and fuck us in the process. If this site is legally liable for posts on it, trolls are going to swarm this place and overwhelm the mods. The same thing WILL happen with all other alt platforms.
No, it just needs to be ENFORCED. Reclassify Facebook and their ilk like the censorious publishers they are. Keep the 230 protections for non-editorializing 'town square' platforms.
No I don't. If we get rid of section 230 then I think we can say goodbye to this site. It is what protects the creators from the crazy stuff we say or the illegal stuff that the shills come in and say.
Actually this is a terrible idea but I upvoted anyway. Big tech just needs to be redefined when they either actively or automatically via AI censor and editorialize.
If I were a dead liberal I'd vote 8 times
If we have a plan in place to guarantee free speech online afterwards, yes.
He can't though. If it's a law he can't stop the law by passing an EO. Dems don't give a shit about it but I am not about to let those fuckers get away with using EOs to repeal legislation in the future just for a quick gratification now.
You mean like obama’s DACA?
Obama's DACA is not law and if Roberts didn't have someone threatening to release his Epstein Island Adventure tapes he wouldn't have ruled that a president needs a good reason to undo an EO of his predecessor.
DACA is "presidential legislation" but it still was not an EO that repealed a law.
No, it will hurt the small developers the most. they can't developed AI to moderate content like FB or Twitter. The big company's can, enforce it instead, they must choose, platform or publisher.
I don't think its a matter of support. His tweet states he is doing it. That's plain English to me.
Section 230 has been so badly abused that it needs to go, and these platforms can then seek new legislation that will allow them some protection as IMO a platform that's acting in good faith should be immune to being sued if it's an actual free speech area.
Otherwise... let the lawsuits sue Facebook and Twitter into the ground.
This way will work. Trump team already has alternate avenues to get the messages out to the masses.
Whatever he needs to do at this point in time to get the job done. Things can be finessed after when he begins his second term. They must never be allowed to become the dictators and censors of free speech. Did you all see that post about what the constitution might mean by the word Press [hint they weren't talking about newsmonger!]
I'd rather have the people rise up and demand the states have a constitutional convention and give us a digital bill of rights which guarantees the BoR to the internet. Ownership of property (no ability to ban you from games/music purchased), free speech, and the like.
My personal opinion is that Trump should NOT terminate Section 230 as a sweeping measure. If possible, he should repeal it from specific companies, like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, by identifying and declaring them as "publisher".
How do you do it without hurting Gab and others?
Knowing how the dnccp operates the collateral damage will be weaponised against average people running small forums to Jin up rhetoric. I had been hoping for a targeted solution not a blowout. In my understanding the intent of 230 was to protect small forums from being prosecuted for things their users said on their platform. With 230 gone, leftist will flood this site and anything they don't like with all sorts of illage shit and those running the site and many others will be dragged into court.
No. A revision that CLEARLY draws a line in the sand for companies like FBook, google, etc as to how they can INSTANTLY avail themselves of such judicial protections would be great. These companies should not be allowed 230 protections. They have violated that protection law.
He should round all these commie assholes up, for purposes of national security, make socialism and/or any variation thereof a criminal offence, disband the Democrap Party and ship them out to Guantanamo... maybe the following day he could tell Chanel Rion at OANN "I lost all my Commies in a helicoptering accident..."
Overdue!!!
this is a bad idea it will cause more censorship because everyone would be scared to be sued. we need the 1st amendment to apply to these platforms
Why not just remove the protection for the companies that are not following the rules.
Big tech easily has a 50% H1Bs so that's a vulnerability, foreigners should not be interfering with American elections.