Just my 2 cents, removing the section 230 as whole it would be problematic for sites like this, the 50cents army trolls that have came here this past month will do it again with defamation material and other shit that could make our admins end up fighting lawsuit after lawsuit, section 230 should be preserved and twatter, youtube, failbook, and reddit should be classified as publishers instead of platforms.
My take would be to qualify as a platform your code, data (except user authentication data), and process must all be open source and subject to audit on a regular basis. If you can't meet that then you are a publisher.
True. If you're a publisher, which is usually for legacy media, it makes sense for them. Here, anyone can post anything which makes it infinitely harder to police content
In my ideal rule the site would be able to choose and would simply be more or less restricted in their behavior based on that choice. There should also be some kind of safe harbor provision and reasonable time given to take down bad content, like with DMCA.
Perhaps something like an "aggregator" category, for crowd sourced forum boards and membership required sites designed to spread information. It'd need to be very carefully designed to prevent censorship but still allow for moderation of relevant content. Not sure how it could be done legally, but then again, I an not a lawyer, merely a student of the law and a technologist by trade.
But in any case removing it without anything already in place will open the doors to use the legal system to attack (and most likely destroy) this site and other similar, as long we don't have a better protection it shouldn't be just discarded at all.
They censored and dcmaed the holy hell out of Usenet, and IRC is centrally modded worse than anyplace. I don't see them as safe havens for free speech.
Yes I can't disagree with that. This is an issue patriots can argue about, and I wouldn't call Inhofe a RINO over it. But repeal and replace works too. Anything to hurt big tech.
Any ideas? What about only applying to social media sites with advertising? Make those sites pick between publisher & platform. For websites with comments section (local news for example) they will obviously be publishers but we can let their comments sections be a platform (if they choose).
Then let subscription based sites and free sites (no advertising) do what they want.
Make it so a company can go from being a publisher to platform at any time.
Make it so if a company wants to go from being a platform to publisher they must give users a 1 year warning (i.e. what if a company did this late during the election).
However, I would take a different route. Let big tech fail. Rumble and parler and the .win are already beginning to overtake them and will improve with time.
Advocating for more laws and regulations should be a last resort especially for conservatives who want more liberty and less government interference.
If we’re going to stand by our principles, we the people need to beat the big tech communists by coming out with a superior product. Innovate. Code. Support existing free speech platforms like rumble, gab and parler and help them work out the bugs etc.
On top of this, I would advocate for a real investigation into big tech for either sedition, election interference, defamation or crimes against humanity by banning America’s Frontline Doctors.
Idk. Whatever we do, we have to remember it’s a double edged sword so it’s best not to hurl a law unto your communist devil worshipping enemies that you wouldn’t want to be used back on us and limit our freedoms as well.
Assuming that Futzbook, Twitter, and such are alienating 50% of their user base, then there's an absolute shed load of money to be made by competitors who could offer a conservative bias. As a bonus, the nuts and bolts of the operation have already been worked out for prospective entrants by the very folk who's lunch they could eat.
Yeah basically what you said, although I don't care about advertising.
I want platforms to be "common carriers" like the phone company, and not allowed to make any content curation choices except for illegal material. I'm not sure how to handle community curation, reputation, and recommended/trending algorithms without making the law super complex and overreaching.
What about this community? Do we have to allow bots, shills, trolls, and commies? That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. I think some websites should get to pick. Obviously Facebook is too big / powerful etc. But where do we draw some lines?
There is no way to do it without the law being super complex and overreaching.
Platforms cannot be common carriers because one of the main motivations for the creation of that classification was that there were geographical restrictions to access to competitors. AT&T is the only game in town in a lot of places in the US. This is not so online, you can easily within 5 minutes begin using any of a plethora of alternatives to Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Reddit to publish your thoughts and engage with other people.
Umm, no. That makes no sense, and is likely why Trump held off so long on 230 and real consequences for big tech. Because destroying these companies diminishes America's dominance in the tech field, and economically.
The traitors need to be hung, and new leadership needs to be brought in. And then some legislation enacted to protect it from happening again.
Oh and hang the senators that are protecting them. Clearly big tech knows they own the senate, or they wouldn't be so brazenly censoring things. They know there was never any real danger of laws being passed against them. It's likely going to take a citizen uprising against senators, and likely more than just a peaceful gathering outside a government building.
Oh we cannot go against China, coz it will affect some of our farmers.
Oh we cannot pull out of WHO, because WHO still does some good. It should just be reformed.
Oh we cannot pull out of NAFTA, because it will disrupt the trade relations.
Oh we cannot pull troops out of Middle east, because it will be destabilized and terrorist organizations will take over.
There is sure drawbacks with removal of section 230, but Trump has assessed that the pain is bigger for Big Tech. He is betting that in a war of attrition, they will capitulate first. No pain, no gain.
This has been Trump's play for numerous times now, I am not sure why "pedes" still don't get it.
You're not trading .win for big tech, you're trading the ability to publish freely online for maybe a shot at big tech. And you're doing it when you don't even have to. They're all about to be sued and broken up for antitrust violations. What's strategically incompetent is scorched earth right when the battle has turned in your favor.
If it did come into effect and we didn't want to get sued, just have no censorship here and then we can be regarded as a platform rather than a publisher. Simple. Trolls and leftists can just get downvoted into oblivion.
I agree 100% with all of this. People don't understand there technically isn't a # of users threshold or popularity threshold, and this doesn't apply just to the big few sites. It applies to literally every site where people can create content on without a gatekeeper.
Think about some random chat site that you might create when you're first learning code and then think of someone leaving some kind of illegal shit there when you're not looking. Would be terrible.
Just my 2 cents, removing the section 230 as whole it would be problematic for sites like this, the 50cents army trolls that have came here this past month will do it again with defamation material and other shit that could make our admins end up fighting lawsuit after lawsuit, section 230 should be preserved and twatter, youtube, failbook, and reddit should be classified as publishers instead of platforms.
Section 230 doesn't make such a distinction with companies. We need a new law to do that.
.win would be considered a publisher as well. This site wouldn’t last a day before being sued into oblivion by trolls.
There needs to be a new category that is not a platform or publisher.
This is a private site it doesn't claim to be a public forum. Not sure how all that works.
I don't know why 230 even matters. The law trump should be creating is one that prevents them censoring any content at all
Can anyone register an account here?
Whether registration/verificstion is required.
My take would be to qualify as a platform your code, data (except user authentication data), and process must all be open source and subject to audit on a regular basis. If you can't meet that then you are a publisher.
This is a good one too
True. If you're a publisher, which is usually for legacy media, it makes sense for them. Here, anyone can post anything which makes it infinitely harder to police content
In my ideal rule the site would be able to choose and would simply be more or less restricted in their behavior based on that choice. There should also be some kind of safe harbor provision and reasonable time given to take down bad content, like with DMCA.
Follow the rules of the constitution you’re free from 230... once you start to deviate from the constitution, you’re a publisher
Perhaps something like an "aggregator" category, for crowd sourced forum boards and membership required sites designed to spread information. It'd need to be very carefully designed to prevent censorship but still allow for moderation of relevant content. Not sure how it could be done legally, but then again, I an not a lawyer, merely a student of the law and a technologist by trade.
But in any case removing it without anything already in place will open the doors to use the legal system to attack (and most likely destroy) this site and other similar, as long we don't have a better protection it shouldn't be just discarded at all.
You know what? I'm fine with that for the moment - shut it all down. We can go back to usenet and irc heh.
/s irc.thedonald.win -j #WINNING
isnt usenet still around? has anyone be checking lately to see if conversations are still happening there?
maybe all this time it has been an uncensored haven.
edit. hmmm. still around. used to ne able tobread usenet with thunderbird mail reader on linux. https://www.usenet.com
https://www.techradar.com/best/best-nzb-indexing-websites
They censored and dcmaed the holy hell out of Usenet, and IRC is centrally modded worse than anyplace. I don't see them as safe havens for free speech.
alt.binaries.covfefe
Make Usenet great again!
Yes I can't disagree with that. This is an issue patriots can argue about, and I wouldn't call Inhofe a RINO over it. But repeal and replace works too. Anything to hurt big tech.
They’ve not been playing by he rules
Wait until Trump wakes people up to how they expatriate money
Most cases wouldn't have much grounds to litigate and would seem frivolous
Any ideas? What about only applying to social media sites with advertising? Make those sites pick between publisher & platform. For websites with comments section (local news for example) they will obviously be publishers but we can let their comments sections be a platform (if they choose).
Then let subscription based sites and free sites (no advertising) do what they want.
Make it so a company can go from being a publisher to platform at any time.
Make it so if a company wants to go from being a platform to publisher they must give users a 1 year warning (i.e. what if a company did this late during the election).
That’s good thinking.
However, I would take a different route. Let big tech fail. Rumble and parler and the .win are already beginning to overtake them and will improve with time.
Advocating for more laws and regulations should be a last resort especially for conservatives who want more liberty and less government interference.
If we’re going to stand by our principles, we the people need to beat the big tech communists by coming out with a superior product. Innovate. Code. Support existing free speech platforms like rumble, gab and parler and help them work out the bugs etc.
On top of this, I would advocate for a real investigation into big tech for either sedition, election interference, defamation or crimes against humanity by banning America’s Frontline Doctors.
Idk. Whatever we do, we have to remember it’s a double edged sword so it’s best not to hurl a law unto your communist devil worshipping enemies that you wouldn’t want to be used back on us and limit our freedoms as well.
Let Capitalism, not legislation, sort it out !
Assuming that Futzbook, Twitter, and such are alienating 50% of their user base, then there's an absolute shed load of money to be made by competitors who could offer a conservative bias. As a bonus, the nuts and bolts of the operation have already been worked out for prospective entrants by the very folk who's lunch they could eat.
How / why would big tech fail?
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlB7dOHS/x/c/4DpMeXTk4Bx
Yeah basically what you said, although I don't care about advertising.
I want platforms to be "common carriers" like the phone company, and not allowed to make any content curation choices except for illegal material. I'm not sure how to handle community curation, reputation, and recommended/trending algorithms without making the law super complex and overreaching.
What about this community? Do we have to allow bots, shills, trolls, and commies? That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. I think some websites should get to pick. Obviously Facebook is too big / powerful etc. But where do we draw some lines?
There is no way to do it without the law being super complex and overreaching.
Platforms cannot be common carriers because one of the main motivations for the creation of that classification was that there were geographical restrictions to access to competitors. AT&T is the only game in town in a lot of places in the US. This is not so online, you can easily within 5 minutes begin using any of a plethora of alternatives to Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Reddit to publish your thoughts and engage with other people.
That’s the colloquial use for a reasonable interpretation of the statute
Best suggestion.
We all do, but scorched earth is not the way.
Umm, no. That makes no sense, and is likely why Trump held off so long on 230 and real consequences for big tech. Because destroying these companies diminishes America's dominance in the tech field, and economically.
The traitors need to be hung, and new leadership needs to be brought in. And then some legislation enacted to protect it from happening again.
Oh and hang the senators that are protecting them. Clearly big tech knows they own the senate, or they wouldn't be so brazenly censoring things. They know there was never any real danger of laws being passed against them. It's likely going to take a citizen uprising against senators, and likely more than just a peaceful gathering outside a government building.
TD.W would definitely be one of the first to go, they would make sure of it. That's just an honest blackpill for everyone.
RINO talk is what they doing.
Oh we cannot go against China, coz it will affect some of our farmers.
Oh we cannot pull out of WHO, because WHO still does some good. It should just be reformed.
Oh we cannot pull out of NAFTA, because it will disrupt the trade relations.
Oh we cannot pull troops out of Middle east, because it will be destabilized and terrorist organizations will take over.
There is sure drawbacks with removal of section 230, but Trump has assessed that the pain is bigger for Big Tech. He is betting that in a war of attrition, they will capitulate first. No pain, no gain.
This has been Trump's play for numerous times now, I am not sure why "pedes" still don't get it.
Old habits die hard
That’s why so many Wall Street rat fucks hate Trump
Fine, you know what, do away with thedonald and every other free speech site. Letting our enemies have what they want is how we win!
Fucking retards. If this goes through you can address apologies to u/obamasloosebutthole, oh wait... we won't be here.
You're not trading .win for big tech, you're trading the ability to publish freely online for maybe a shot at big tech. And you're doing it when you don't even have to. They're all about to be sued and broken up for antitrust violations. What's strategically incompetent is scorched earth right when the battle has turned in your favor.
Excellent summary here about the issue.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, future.
Yeah no shit.
Whatever you say, bud. I'll wait for you to realize this will only make censorship worse.
Similar things were said about net neutrality
If it did come into effect and we didn't want to get sued, just have no censorship here and then we can be regarded as a platform rather than a publisher. Simple. Trolls and leftists can just get downvoted into oblivion.
Wrong because the protection for platforms is in section 230 safe harbor. Your plan relies on section 230.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, future.
Well just edit it so that platforms are protected and publishers aren't.
This, plus break them up.
I agree 100% with all of this. People don't understand there technically isn't a # of users threshold or popularity threshold, and this doesn't apply just to the big few sites. It applies to literally every site where people can create content on without a gatekeeper.
Think about some random chat site that you might create when you're first learning code and then think of someone leaving some kind of illegal shit there when you're not looking. Would be terrible.