Trump Tweet: Looks like certain Republican Senators are getting cold feet with respect to the termination of Big Tech’s Section 230, a National Security and Election Integrity MUST. For years, all talk, no action. Termination must be put in Defense Bill!!!
(twitter.com)
🦅 Trump Tweet 🦅
posted ago by Beegie
+8193 / -0
Refine 230, don’t remove it. This will give big tech what they want!
Break up the big tech monopolies!!
It's called the Big Ask. Read the art of the deal
^^^^ A pede who understands negotiating.
Fuck yes they do. I wish more of us would learn these principles.
Yup. Just like if you go ask your husband to go to a 5 star restaurant, of course he'll decline, but then you settle cracker barrel.
And realize you wanted cracker barrel the entire time. Winning!
Republicans are all talk.. remember how for years they said they wanted to repeal Obamacare and then they got the house the Senate and the presidency and suddenly they couldn't do it?.
I mean... their food is good. And cheap.
Lol
Maybe, maybe thats what they are doing. What if its not. What if he's being conned into giving big tech exactly what they want. Dont be so sure
The Electors have not been named, so how is he a Lame Duck? If/ When, and only then. This would be like calling Bill Clinton a Rapist, before his first rape.
Black Pills be gone.
Also, Bill Clinton Is A Rapist!
I've been raped by Pelosi?
Info wars.com
I seem to recall a former president with a surprisingly short magic wand who couldn't get daca passed. Seems like he was able to do some shit.
"Because AP said so."
Did you forget Hillary conceded?
When the other side concedes it is a little different but yeah he wasn't technically president elect until after the EC voted.
Also, you can't bitch about Trump's office of the president elect BS now that Biden is doing it, retard.
This guy has never produced video before and it shows. If you want to actually make money on youtube you have to put in shitloads of effort, a "real job" is way, way easier.
You see the doofus playing video games but you don't see the hours and hours of editing and voiceover that went into it.
Edit: unless you're a pretty girl, under 30. Then visual media is easy mode because the only reason anyone cares about you is thirst. But that applies to real jobs too.
Editing really isn't that difficult. What is difficult is to do it day in and day out while building a base that may or may not eventually pay off. Luck finds you when you're working.
It's much more tedious and time consuming than difficult. 20 minutes of raw video that needs to be cut down to less than 5 can easily take an hour, a lot of it just deciding how it should be sequenced. Not even getting into voiceover which is WAY harder than it sounds if you haven't trained in the skill of reading for voiceover.
Wrong.. maybe if you're making trash videos but if you want quality you have to put a lot of time and effort into every cut, every frame, every thumbnail takes tons of time to make, the right transitions, the layering, the voice overs, the animations.... If it was easy than every top youtuber wouldn't be hiring people to do the job for them. There's a skill and dedication level to it.
I'm just hoping that more sites will be encouraged to start up that work with creators better than google.
Get rid of 230 and let the chips fall. It will help to improve the culture. Adjust to the reality without 230. It can be done.
Youtube is the new TV. Without Hollywood.
No doubt. It's also the biggest repository of legit learning and honest entertainment on the planet. Bible teaching too.
I see your logic, especially regarding older generations disapproving of newer generations' behavior.
However, it sounds like you're saying old people don't matter. Just because you disagree with their disdain and frustration with the internet (they didn't even have calculators growing up, let alone mobile phones or YouTube) it doesn't detract from the value or import of their opinions.
I agree, that calling for the immediate removal of something b/c 'big tech bad' is a tad premature. There has to be a middle ground that protects smaller tech businesses while holding large companies accountable for all the shady shit they pull.
But don't devolve into a hater or a name-caller. Those are dem tactics. Talk to the older people in your life. Hear them out.
Ask for much more, then negotiate it down to what you really wanted.
That only works if the other side isn't willing to give you precisely what you asked for.
Unfortunately outright removing 230 will fuck all of the little companies struggling to compete against big tech. Exactly what they and their lobbyists want.
Exactly. The massive companies can afford the highly sophisticated AI that would be required to carefully scan all posts in real time. Additionally, it will encourage them to increase the stringency, and insta-block anything that even seems like it could have controversial content.
The largest corps also will also be able to afford any lawsuits that arise if some content sneaks through the censors. Small platforms never will.
Sites like this would have to either keep their "platform" status, but stop blocking content based on things like being an anti-Trump shill, which would quickly turn the site into another place for reddit content, or become a "publisher" and be required to censor everything- which would really mean ceasing to exist.
Some people argue that it'd work if it only applied to sites that are a certain size, but again, take into account a site like this. We are certainly not a small site, and just keep growing - but will never have the resources that cutouts like FB have.
Eliminating 230 sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would give big tech co's the perfect opportunity to get rid of all their up & coming competition, AND increase censorship and control of content.
I'm pretty sure that if 230 is repealed, the "platform" status won't exist any more. I think it would then be up to the courts what to do if someone wanted to sue over content posted here (or anywhere).
You are exactly right.
Big Ask or not, there needs to be a plan on what the new 230 would be after it's revised.
This part of the truth of the matter worries me the most.
Lol, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube could all disappear within a day they would be buried under so many lawsuits. Little guys who can keep control of their content would be fine.
Big sites could be fine too, as long as they stop curating content.
Like when he was like "Destroy the education system!"...really he just wanted it reformed so leftists can't run it.
I interpreted that to mean replacing public with private/ charter. Which is basically destroying the current education system.
We're both right. He just wanted to make people think he wanted all education destroyed to achieve it.
Smart!
Yep. I think the idea is for GOP peeps to come back with provisions that allow for companies to have their protection status revoked for violating the platform part or allowing people to sue the platform for overly censoring them.
That would be the best.
Exactly. Aim crazy high, and in the end you get what you need. Classic Trump.
Dude is a master in this arena. He got a damn wall without house majority.
tHeRe Is No WaLl
It's not a big ask when you are negotiating exactly what the person your negotiating with wants.
They already built the chinese social credit system. The moment we remove section 230, that will be implemented across the major platforms, and sites like this will be dead.
If Big Tech wanted Section 230 repealed, why haven't they themselves been advocating for it?
They have
They've been banning us for two years now, just waiting for us to beg the government to regulate them more.
You'll notice that they didn't begin really doing mas banning on the level they are now, until after they had developed the chinese social media credit system. That's how they'll keep you from being able to register, and post content on their sites.
Do you know who will be able to post content though? Propagandists from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NPR.
100 percent this there was and gab explains why here
The Big Tech giants want to be regulated.
Yes, you read that right.
Big Tech knows that if online speech is regulated by the federal government, either directly or indirectly via regulation of tech companies, they can and will weaponize it against The People and stifle competition.
Big Tech oligarchs have tried everything to destroy Gab.com and stop our industry-leading free speech software from reaching the masses.
They banned us from both app stores, yet we still continued to grow.
Then they banned us from hosting providers, so we built our own.
Then they banned us from Paypal, Stripe, Coinbase, Square, and more. So we educated our community on free speech money and the great people on Gab started mailing us physical checks to keep the site online.
Then they blacklisted my family from Visa in a Communist Chinese Party social credit score-style form of tyranny.
Despite being banned by 25+ service providers including domain registrars, hosting platforms, app stores, email services, ecommerce services, and more: Gab has survived and continues to thrive.
Gab exists outside of the establishment’s control. They don’t like this, at all. Their monopoly on the free flow of information is coming to an end because Gab is inevitable.
When all else has failed, Big Tech and the establishment have set their sights on using Big Government to crush Gab and other alternative technology startups by destroying Section 230 and lobbying for regulation of speech on the internet.
Regulation will solidify Big Tech’s already overpowered and abusive market monopolies.
What folks need to understand is that Section 230 does not protect the speech of Big Tech companies. When Big Tech “fact checks” user content they are acting as a publisher and Section 230 immunity does not apply. As such, they can be held accountable for that speech.
Section 230 doesn’t apply to Big Tech’s editorializing. The First Amendment does. Section 230 only applies to content that users post on their platforms. It provides no protections for Big Tech’s own speech. They can and should be punished for the false information they are giving the public by weaponizing this editorialization of user content
In the case of the Coronavirus, Big Tech has been using the WHO as an “authority” on health related matters instead of official health guidelines from the President of the United States. This is a matter of national security and public health.
The same goes for editorializing election-related content. By “fact checking” one candidate and not another Big Tech is giving an in-kind campaign contribution of enormous and immeasurable monetary value to the Biden campaign. Big Tech should be investigated by the FEC for these in-kind campaign contributions to the Biden campaign. The RNC has filed a report on it, so let’s hope the FEC takes action.
Big Tech had record stock market performance under the Trump administration and how are they repaying him?
By helping the Democrats spread the Russian hoax narrative.
By “fact checking” him and not Joe Biden.
By censoring links to news stories about Joe Biden.
The President can and should trust bust the Big Tech monopolies, in particular Apple and Google’s duopoly on mobile app distribution along with Facebook and Google’s duopoly on online advertising and search. The only big reason he hasn't is because Big Tech stocks make up a significant portion of the stock market growth he likes to tout.
If the market needs to take a hit in order to destroy a domestic threat to freedom and the flow of information online then so be it. We do not worship the stock market in America, we worship almighty God. Your 401k gains aren’t worth the future of the Republic, sorry.
My point is: don’t fall for the Section 230 narrative. It’s a distraction. There are plenty of other things that can be done to stop Big Tech tyranny.
The President vastly underestimates how much influence he has online. Trust busting, FEC investigations, and more aside: if the President were to promote free speech technology platforms like Gab the Big Tech panopticon would collapse on itself and fast.
I just hope the President realizes this before it’s too late.
was with you until here.
Either platforms editorialize and fact check at all (and become publishers)
or they remain a neutral platform and do zero editorials or fact checking (remaining a platform).
A sensible standard would be that platforms can moderate and delete content based on a set of standards as long as they are open about what they are, and they can also publish their own opinions separately, as long as they are clear which is which.
But if they "fact check" user content or otherwise editorialise about it, then they lose protection for the user content as it has become part of their own publication.
they do want regulation.
the only real solution to effective regulation is to go counter to logic. you must deliver what is least wanted by the biggest entities, counter to all of history's tax and economic policy here.
what is needed is a multi-tiered plan of exemptions by which only specific entities qualify for specific exemptions.
basically google and amazon should get nothing or the absolute minimum protection possible to provide by law. small entities, independent websites, and basically people with no money or backing or standing should get 100% protection at all times, and entities in the middle should get some limited protections but only that.
facebook, google, amazon should lose almost everything except the bare minimums required to do business reasonably.
large corporations should mostly lose 230 unless they specifically manage their website counter to the personal interests of the owners and allow/maintain free speech as a public square -- personally id be happier if these services were forced to register as nonprofit or something for it, but compromise could be obtained for medium to large size enterprises given certain concessions made over control.
independent websites should see no change whatsoever allowing lightly hand-moderated discussion forums and such with no copyright liability assuming fair and reasonable moderation. these people have little to no money often, are not businesses even (its uncommon today in the reddit world but still), and are run as hobbies.
people who arent violating free speech shouldnt be unfairly regulated out of the markets and out of the public square in favor of those capable of meeting excessive and specific unilateral regulations.
this is NOT FAIR to big business and every lobbyist in history would be after you since it actually SOLVES the problem without granting them their monopoly status.
I know this seems to go counter to logic but the point is to maintain both the library/archival and the digital public square while only regulating the individuals specifically causing an issue without bias towards anyone's individual socio-economic goals.
My perspective here is we SHOULD be listening to the nobodies and totally the ignoring the somebodies. especially with tech where pretty much any good coder can do a lot of shit in different ways that isnt really copyright infringement despite the needless lawsuits (theres more than equation for most problems lol).
the problem here is much similar to copyright enforcement -- running say this website, thedonald.win, its very hard to stop every user from posting a potentially copyrighted image and its not the administrator's fault that it would happen. If you go out and say "you need the most advanced google bot to prevent all potential infringement" not only have you just CREATED a defacto monopoly by law, but also priced out just about any normal individual who wanted to run a website that probably never would have any infringing content anyway.
so what you need is multiple systems of standards -- not just one tier. it may seem unfair, but its the only fair way. if you have a single-tier of justice for this type of crime than it becomes unfair to one group to the excess of the other.
what you want is equal unfairness. the solution nobody is asking for really. a multi-tier system where certain individuals are exempt and others arent based on things like content, intent, company size, and there should be complaint forms that citizens can file for those who receive exemptions that can begin investigation for a hearing to remove said exemptions should they violate the terms and requirements to obtain them.
If im running my own site i should have way less liability than facebook in terms of everything especially if its not even a business. facebook should have to spend way extra money on moderation and copyright enforcement than I do. individuals who violate free speech should lose protections but not those who dont or otherwise have no stakes in doing so.
That’s not the solution. The solution is to amend section 230 to clearly state that any platform who censors user content becomes a publisher and will have protections removed. That way the law is verbatim instead of implied.
Well said!
Me too pede. Me too.
If it gets put on the .gov, their should be no speech regulations, barring what is already illegal.
Deal making calling for a removal negotiate a compromise. As-long they cant censor anymore that's all that matters
"Twitter is responsible for what we post. That is why this will make censorship worse." They can make the censorship as bad as they want; it's not going to save their business when they lose their legal shelter. No one will be on a Silicon Valley platform under those circumstances. They won't bother. They'll send a fucking group text message. Same damn thing: no propaganda.
It also prevents them from getting sued for third party content... and they WILL get sued due to third-party content. That's why.
Explain yourself pede!
I'm personally worried about sites like this one. Right now, they aren't liable for what we post, but after the removal of 230, they would have to start censoring us more.
The reason we're here hidding in a corner of the internet like rats it's BECAUSE of Censorship!
I love the Donald but we shouldn't need it in the first place. We should be able to talk about our point of views EVERYWHERE like regular people.
Removing 230 doesn't mean that we will be guaranteed equal rights online. It means that websites can be sued for the content that people post on them
I wish I was a regular person, big tech made me into a rat!
This. Imagine being able to actually tell a SJW on Reddit that they're wrong, provide evidence, and not have 200 bots automatically downvote you because your post was flagged as wrongthink by Reddit's keyword algorithm.
Um... Removing Section 230 wouldn't do anything about that.
Where in my post did I say anything about "Section 230"?
Reading comprehension.
It was context for the thread. I think it was a fairly reasonable inference. Looks like we’re in agreement.
That makes sense. Gives domain registrars reason to Ban us
Pretty sure they can just do it already whenever they want with no consequences
Why would they? We aren't doing anything illegal. 230 was supposed to protect a site from liability if the users posted something illegal. Political discorce being censored is entirely the will of the website.
Because they, as a publisher, will deem what content that want on their platform.
What are you not understanding
Well, they are already doing that, 230 is already functionally useless for preserving free speech.
So why do you think that getting rid of it is going to make anything better for us? It won't. It basically just kills social media, which is fine I guess. I'd much rather have an online freedom of speech guaranteed by law but that probably won't happen
We will then be able to sue them when their demonrat users post shit they shouldn't have.
Does it also mean Twitter would be obligated to ban the antics leaders?
It is a very powerful law. If reworded or enforced it is great. essentially using TheDonald.win as an example:
If the donald.win is a platform then you or me can post what ever and thedonald.win won't be taken down as they are not liable for content. Essentially a platform is an area for free speech full stop.
if the donald.win is treated like a publisher then content on here is seen as their content and they are liable.
however when twitter is a platform that censors then the law isn't working at all so burn it with fire.
They are brainwashed. They watched Tim Pool to many times. He always goes nutty when 230 gets brought up.
I think the problem is it protects sites like this as well. Big tech can afford a censorship department and will be fine. All the little guys will have another regulatory burden. This extra cost will only help the oligopolies stifle competition as it becomes harder to enter the game. It seems Gab and Parler is not for repeal. I haven't heard anything on Minds yet.
TD.W is not a publisher. It would not effect it in anyway,
I know what he's demanding, the issue is that big tech actually wants that to happen.
Yes, makes them actually look at the law.
Agree 100%. Pulling 230 outright kills smaller sites without crazy powerful AI.
This is one of very few things I disagree with Trump on.
Spez: Could be hes overasking on purpose to have the lattitude to negotiate down to 230 refinement like others have said. That would be classic Trump.
As though you can't pass a new law afterwards.
Or just ignore 230 and all future revisions, like what they're doing now.
The only regulators with teeth are the people themselves.
The larger the site, the larger the risk right?
this. sure 100% they can go after smaller sites.
But, by and large, money talks, and most lawsuits will be against large websites with money to pay.
It is a gambit that Big Tech will have more to lose, and hence will ask their lobbyists to cooperate.
The same people in this site are acting the same way RINOs do when they go against Trump's ideas.
If you want to win something, you have to risk something.
He’s not making these decisions on his own
Or... he knows what he's doing and it's the art of the deal. Start off with a high demand of them, then just get them to re-write 230.
Win-win.
Except Big Tech actually want 230 gone as well, in maybe year or two, and they own enough lobbyists to make it happen, especially when Trump is acting to be on board with it.
Stop listening to Tim pool.
this site would be impacted as well, right?
terminating 230 means the site owner is directly liable for the content. So they'd probably need to vet us all and implement an ability to terminate accounts and delete content the moment any of us step out of line (like a publisher).
I for one am not for completely dismantling all of social media. sam is a fantastic tool for small businesses to advertise at Los cost (like gun stores), have groups of people conglomerate (double edged sword, but how many of us would be Trump supporters without TD? I'm guessing maybe half), and for leaders (like Trump) to communicate to his people.
We need monopolies broken up, and held to certain standards.
Yeah better to break up ISP monopolies. Service sucks and they throttle Netflix, plus adding caps now
They should throttle all CP distribution networks.
You mean we might have to post under absurd rules that large companies don't have to follow and carefully watch every word we say while their sites host thousands of people cackling about cutting our throats open in the street?
if we assume the rules will be applied fairly (I know, but follow me)
we already know twitter/facebook have tooling that can completely shadowban anyone at a moments notice, so they can do it.
Remove section 230 social media dies and what is left are the "politically correct" influencers pandering to whoever signs their checks.
No, meaning that lefties could swarm here, post child porn and get the site and the owners into serious legal troubles.
That’s my understanding as well
So it would effectively destroy free speech?
yes, and it would kill big tech in the process. it's the nuclear option, and the only option trump himself can somewhat enforce.
Except in this case, the Big Ask is playing straight into hands of Big Tech, who also want 230 gone (not now, but in short time frame) and own enough lobbyists to make it happen, especially when POTUS is acting like he is on board.
SENATE PASSED MIKE LEE'S IMMIGRATION EXPANSION/OPEN BORDERS BILL BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. THIS WOULD GIVE BIG TECH ALL THE CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR IT WANTS. ALL REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE RINOS, NO EXCEPTIONS!
They really are trying to completely undermine the IT industry for Americans as a whole
Being a lawyer is not highly lucrative unless you are both extremely skilled and extremely lucky. The job market is supersaturated, and new graduates are DESPERATE to earn positions at firms. I recall reading this article stating that a major firm offered an entry level job for $10k a year and received several applications.
That's true, but I don't think its the cause for lawyer salaries in particular being so low. Instead, it is simple supply and demand. There aren't thousands of H1B lawyers because you'd have to get an education in our system in order to qualify. Instead, I believe it is due to (in this specific context) a combination of a growing quantity of available law programs/schools, a general lowering of standards to accept students into those schools, and an increasing number of students who want to "be a lawyer," because the cultural assumption is that a lawyer will be successful and have status/wealth. The available supply of lawyers greatly surpasses the demand, so the value of their work is now less than it once was. We think of "lawyers and doctors" as some of the most successful individuals in our society, but as being a lawyer becomes a more attainable goal for more people, that status it once held is eroded.
Yep, IT is supersaturated as well both domestically and foreign. OTOH us pedes in trades are running laps around most IT salaries. Clearing a grand a day isn't uncommon, and work is plenty, and they call us.
If H1B and similar programs caused lawyers to be replaced at the rate tech and healthcare workers are being replaced, it would have ended a long time ago.
IT isn't real work, go grab a hardhat and join us doing actual work pede, we've got a country to build. Spent fifteen years doing that shit and all it does is rot your brain.
Also keep in mind that “unanimous consent” is a procedural move where they vote without actually voting. Basically it means nobody is voting against it, but at the same time no votes are recorded for it either.
It just passes with “unanimous consent.”
The Uniparty apparently thinks that things are about to go back to normal. They can guess again.
This statement encapsulates the entire election. It truly is amazing how many even on tdw seem to have been almost entirely naive about what the GOP really is.
ALWAYS HAVE BEEN..
Never forget how many Rs hated Trump in the early years, they were beaten into submission by his popularity, but would love nothing more than to go back to the swamp... WE ARE NOT REPUBLICANS, we are patriots that beat the R party into submission, and we must kept beating them until there are no RINOS left!
Unironically, we are the RINOs. We aren't and never have been Republicans. We're Americans and our party should be the American party, not the tainted shitstain that is the Republican party.
According to congress.gov, that is fake news.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386
Nobody knows wtf is going on anymore. It makes it super hard to even be made at my reps because if incall them, and bring this up, yet they didn't actually vote on it, well now who looks like the jackass?
Politicians are all blackmailed/evil
Let's make something clear. One we're at WAR.
Two I know you kids love your little social media toys but what good is social media if you don't have a country anymore?? That's what we're facing right now.
Three. President Trump isn't going to take a way 230 from completely just take it from TWITTER FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE!! They violated the 230 terms.
Ok let me make something else really clear Twitter. facebook and youtube doesn't want you on their platform. If you don't agree with far left ideologies. They don't want you there. So they're going censor you ANYWAY. So let's stop with this whole "they will censor us more" bs. It's a very insane argument. They're planning to deplatform anyone who doesn't go along with far left ideologies. That's been the plan since 2016. I don't understand why Trump supporters of all people don't understand his. JACK DORSEY WANTS YOU OFF HIS PLATFORM because you are racist to him. Twitter and facebook are all American intel agnecies creations given to some useful idiots in order to collect data on people. That's all it ever was. Facebook was a intel project called lifebook. Once they claimed lifebook was discontinued then some nobody claimed he invented this new cool social media platform called facebook ..That did the exact samething lifebook did. These are information gathering and public opinion controlling tools. Nothing more. President Trump is just waking you all up to a harsh truth that Americans have been allowed to ignore for over a decade now
This right here, although minus the invectives, if it were me writing it.
The real problem are uneducated end users. They never read the user agreement, and do not understand the relationship between them and the service provider. They mistakenly thought "free speech" applied to the service. If they read the terms they agreed to, they'd know better.
The solution is simple: leave the service. Only use services that treat you fairly, with terms of service you agree to. If this actually was happening more, we'd have millions of users migrating from the bad services, to the better services.
Given enough time, and lack of user migration based on market pressures (aka, vote with your feet, leave) any service provider will become stagnant and draconian. End users can therefore never become complacent. Example: Parler looks good now, but may become draconian later. Google had a similar trajectory.
End users must be ready and willing to migrate to better services. If they are not, they signal to the market that the usual pressures no longer exist, and will therefore be taken advantage of.
laissez faire is not going to solve this problem. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. They are turning our norms against us.
How do you propose we solve the problem? By being lemmings, follow the herd? Hope Uncle Sam forces the meanies running the service to be nice to us?
Here's a norm: don't stay in abusive relationships. Find a better use of your time.
You cannot repeal a law only for selected groups. When law is repealed, it is gone for everyone.
That is why asking for repeal of 230 instead of amending it or replacing it is just dumb.
To the pedes here saying "Refine 230, don't remove it":
You are acting exactly like RINOs like Dan Crenshaw etc. "Don't pull out the troops".
You have to understand if you go for "Refine 230" approach, it will NEVER happen. You will wait for years and it will never happen.
It is the same thing as:
"Don't remove Obamacare, fix it"
"Don't pull out of NAFTA, fix it."
"Don't pull out of Iran deal, fix it."
"Don't pull out of Paris Climate accord, fix it."
Pulling the plug forces them to act or into the negotiating table. Sure, Big Tech can gain an advantage, but I think that is exagerrated. Lawsuits will go after big companies with money, not small tech companies.
Yes, I am sure Twitter/Facebook would certainly not fund lawsuits against their competitors second they can (which means second after their plants spam the competition with child porn)
i am no means a legal expert, but I think you guys are greatly exagerating a doomsday over removal of section 230.
Obviously, child porn is illegal and would be taken down by the website owner, even without section 230. How do you think other countries function? Seriously, some people here think there is no world outside the US.
Removing section 230 will have an impact, one of which is there will be increased overall censorship as websites will be forced to take down content to avoid getting sued, but I think Trump is betting that it will be a bigger headache for Big Tech rather than small companies.
Big tech does not care.
Using AI and machine learning is a thing done even now, how do you think all the "election results have been called for Biden" notices get added on Twitter, or how is YouTube automatically recognizing copyrighted stuff?
It is all matter of training it and scaling it up, so they can do close to 100% of moderation automatically and in real time.
Small sites do not have that option, as running such extensive machine learning network is very resource demanding, even if you somehow manage to obtain a fully trained system that is ready to go (and you can bet the monopoly of Big Tech will gladly share theirs among themselves)
And frankly, even though I am not living in US, I do want US to keep being the tech dominant, because it is the only place where free speech and in more wider sense, freedom, is guaranteed (other countries are very much "well, yes, but actually no" about that)
The problem is Silicon Valley has enough money and a shared ideology that they can whether a storm like this.
However the other problem is that Ajit Pai and Congress are made up of cowards who refuse to enforce the law as it is written, which would give us the effect Trump needs.
Let me put it this way, once 230 is repealed then thedonald dot win will disappear the moment some /pol/ack starts ranting about kykes controlling America.
Obviously more money and resources, will always be an advantage for Big Tech, even just the number of legal team they can hire.
It all comes down to whether the projected pain is bigger for Big Tech or not. This is the same as China trade war all over again. Trump, for whatever data or advise he has got, is betting Big Tech will cave first coz they have more to lose. That's all it is.
I don't think TDW will just vanish. Sure, they will go after it, but I'd think there be ways to temporarily work around it. Maybe, making TDW non-public, for members only, will shield it, or hosting it in another country.
Hey, if my pirated mangas and movie websites keep on resurrecting even after repeatedly being taken down again and again, I think TDW can survive.
A lot of it comes down to ease of access and how motivated people are to keep searching for a website after its been taken down. People are very motivated by porn and hentai. Can they similarly be motivated by politics?
The internet is a very big place and it takes a lot of work to get a website taken down, but eroding one more layer of protection is not doing us any favors. We will also be hunted and sought out to a degree we have never seen before: recall that AOC wants to put us in concentration camps.
It's not necessarily doomsday but it is bad fucking news if 230 actually gets repealed in full. We cannot hide from the world's sole superpower once they turn the eye on us.
100% agree. They are all brainwashed by that faggot Tim Pool. Every time he brings up Trump wanting 230 gone he goes fucking nuts. He goes on a tirade about how it is going to kill any small content creators. Fuck them, i would rather have my country survive then have some fuckwits make money on youtube, and they still would be capable of making money.
Like you said, other countries get along fine without it.
yep. Obviously, removing section 230 is not ideal.
But the threat and abuse of power happening right now from Big Tech outright censoring POTUS, controlling which is fact-checked news, etc, is so much bigger problem than killing small content creators/websites.
And small content creators and websites will not just die instantly, theyll find a way to survive even for medium term. It is not like Trump is saying there should be no immunity 230 permanently.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. There will be no perfect 230 solution in the near term, not without full control of Senate/ House and Presidency.
Same thing when Trump confronted China on trade deals, there are drawbacks. And RINOs whined about this is not the right approach blah blah. No pain, no gain.
I agree. Someone earlier basically said that laissez-faire capitalisms would solve the issue. They really do not see that these commy, hormone blocker, skirt wearing, cocksuckers will do anything to destroy us, turning our norms against us it not outside of their doctrine.
The law just needs to be fixed. It was made to offer protection from bad actors on any forum.. chills come on here and many other good forums and post calls to violence or CP etc... TD would be held liable and shutdown by the current fbi without 230 just due to this. FB and Twitter would be called before Congress and talked to again.. they could eliminate all competing online forums that don’t agree with their current agenda..
230 needs to include - due to their “public” nature websites/companies can not violate people’s constitutional rights. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and free speech should all be protected. This social contract in public spaces/domains has already been ruled as inherent in the constitution.. it just hasn’t been discussed in courts when it relates to online public spaces as far as I know.
yeah sure. but how do you force it to happen?
Trump has rightfully assessed that the way "bureaucracy" works is that, nothing gets done unless you force the issue. You have to blow it up and people with "bigger" to lose will act and cooperate. He has done this so many times already.
Of course, it also means, he has to back the talk. In case they don't negotiate, it should be more hurtful for Big Tech than smaller companies.
Do other countries have section 230 immunity legislation? Do they suddenly have a collapsed internet websites? I don't think so. Granted, most of the biggest websites in the world are American.
I don't think it (removing section 230) is as bad as people think. Trump would have already calculated this. Not saying there is no impact, but I think the strategy is sound.
IMO revoking 230 would absolutely have a bad effect, but it would take time to appear. Nothing would happen until someone actually started suing a site over content on it, and then the courts would have to decide how to handle it now that 230 was gone. Hopefully somewhere around that point, a new/better version of 230 would be passed.
Trump is a risk-taker, he's probably willing to accept that trade-off in order to get reform.
Trump also has a lot of suits personally lined up, he's been against 230 because of the way people on social media are allowed to defame him.
This is one of the few things I disagree with Trump.
Me too, I prefer antitrust for abusive network monopolies, and platform laws (like we have for the phone companies) to protect civil liberties. Leave everything else alone, or else the commies will be suing everyone.
Liability law is already one of their most potent weapons for justifying corporate censorship and control. (Peter Huber's book Liability is old but based.)
Spez: Good review of Huber here:
https://fee.org/articles/book-review-liability-the-legal-revolution-and-its-consequences-by-peter-w-huber/
"The concept of negligence was redefined to mean, roughly, producing anything that isn’t perfect."
what is your solution to stop big tech censorship then?
End-user education. Read the fine print before agreeing.
If the user agreement states that the service can censor, or otherwise abuse you, don't use that service.
Free speech does not apply to the services in question. Says so right in the user agreement. What you post to the service becomes theirs to do whatever they want with it.
If you agreed to those terms, do not act surprised when they manifested.
If you do not agree, do not use the service.
The future is decentralized platforms. They'll be run by their communities. The only rules will be what the communities decide to enact. Example: this very website. It has rules, even censorship, but they are rules the users agree with, or else those users can leave.
Ah, I see that could be interpreted very differently than I intended. Thanks.
doomer needs to be deported immediately. have faith on Trump and his 4D moves.
Be quiet child!
Seconded
Shocking!!! Republican cowards that only know how how to say the right things and then shit the bed when it comes time for action. Better keep voting for them.
Most Republicans are weak cucks
High Energy
Who are the RINOs?
We need names. Start calling.
All of them.
Senate passed Mike Lee and Heels Up's open borders bill last night by unanimous consent. No one stood up against it. Not Ted, not Rand, not Hawley. NO ONE.
They are ALL RINOs, including Ted.
Nah, Ted is also an establishment guy, but he is willing to play ball with America First populism.
I think only Rand Paul is not a RINO (though technically he is, he is a Libertarian running as Republican because LP does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting mainstream)
Ted's wife works for Soros. Try again.
I'm gonna guess that Miss Lindsey is at the top of the list...
And remember them and their weakness forever
we know who they are
They’re all bought and paid for shills. Lobbying and special interest groups, who write ALL legislation, is just another word for bribery. It’s not going to change until we the people change it. Through force!!
They should grant protection to bona fide platforms. Only revoke it for de facto publishers such as the Big Tech overlords
make social media a public utility
That is just dumb, or completely misunderstanding of why public utilities exist (high creation/maintenance costs).
The idea of platform being enforced is all that is needed. Public square where anyone can come freely and speak their mind.
Yeah how did net neutrality work out.
Give us names, Mr President. If we have some information, we can act. Tired of these guys going on the evening talk shows rattling chains, but they're not willing to step up when it counts. They're not serious.
OF COURSE they're getting "cold feet", because they're also getting DIVIDENDS and (probably) kick-backs! That's why the stinking bastards have been running in place with this for YEARS!
Gawd how we need a “Trump” party. Screw the Republican RINOS
Totally shocking that Trump would know how to negotiate by asking for the maximum extreme in the situation to start working from ...
Oh wait...
He does that all the time.. Never mind
One last point.. You know Twitter says in JAN 2021 President Trump's twitter account will no longer receive their idea of "special treatment". the rumors are Facebook and Youtube as well are taking this same stance as well.. SO GUESS WHAT THAT MEANS?!?! IF YOU THINK THEY WON'T DO IT THEN WATCH!!
SO PEDES LET'S STOP WHINING AND FOCUS WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO DEFEND!!
Keep the pressure but be cautious. Imagine an internet without commenting (230 repeal) - we need it to spread the truth. What we need is augmentation of it to declare you are either free from liability from 3rd party communications and can only remove illegal content OR if you choose to censor / limit you are a publisher.
" we need it to spread the truth"
That hasn't been going to well let's be honest especially since you have the people at the top censoring and lying.
Shouldn't be removed. It should be fixed.
Trump used section 230 as a defence in court for a retweet in 2017.
Yeah it should be fixed like obamacare/s
I've never heard the term "cold feet" as a euphemism for "huge bribes".
He is finding out who is with him and who is not.
Surprise surprise surprise. Republicans are worthless. We need a new party.
who are these RINOs cum swallowers?
Fucking RINOs
The Republican Party doesn't get that people voted for Trump not because he ran as a Republican but in spite of him running as a Republican.
Get rid of 230 and break up big tech. Let the chips fall.
Follow the money
SWAMP MONSTERS F THEM ALL
Terminate those MOFOs (figuratively)
Guaranteed their names are already on the lists, patriot.
More saboteurs being flushed out...
Revise 230 to get rid of "otherwise objectionable." It should only include "crimes and terrorism."
Section 230 says Twitter isn't responsible for what users post - which is true. They shouldn't be. However Section 230 also treats the company like a platform, which by definition is supposed to allow all viewpoints without suppression. Twitter, Facebook, etc. all suppress viewpoints that are right of center. They, despite being protected by 230 and allowed to operate as platforms, act like publishers. The "(i) Multiple sources say this claim is false" tags on Trump tweets and other posts are direct proof that the platforms are acting like publishers, regulating the words coming from the President.
What we ultimately need is enforcement of Section 230, not the repealing of it.
If Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are going to act like publishers, thats perfectly fine. They will be removed from protection under 230 and regulated like any other publisher. They would also have to disclose the fact that they are politically biased and they don't like opinions that are right of Bernie Sanders - make their users well aware of their political intentions. If 230 was enforced, then we'd be able to fight Big Tech in court over their censorship - there's an avalanche of evidence that proves their bias, and we could very easily remove their 230 protections while still keeping the rule in place.
Why do we need Section 230? Because of sites like TheDonald.win. As a platform, TDWin's owners are not legally responsible for the content that gets posted here. Same thing with sites like Parler, or Gab. They're platforms, and Section 230 vindicates them in a legal challenge over posted content. Without Section 230, TDWin wouldn't exist. In a world where Section 230 is repealed, if some larper glowie or sleuthing commie wants to take us out, it could very easily be done by making a post with calls to violence against political enemies or the government at large, links to darkweb sites for drug and weapons trafficking, or things that are far worse. They'd then take this self-post and say "look at what TDWin allows!" and the feds would shut this place down.
Trump is falling for the honeypot. Big Tech wants Section 230 repealed, because without the platform definition, they're free to regulate our voices as they see fit, and will use my aforementioned strategy to undermine alternative social platforms and get them shut down. Ending Section 230 is a honeypot. It plays right into their hands.
Trump isn't going to play nice on this one!
It's not cold feet, it's swamp addiction. The just can't break lose.
SACK THE FUCK UP
Swampers ain't gonna fix this shit. Billions and Billions buys as many whores as you want.
Of course they are they're getting paid big bucks by the big tech lobbyists
Cruz?