Because big tech are the ones that secretly want it removed is my guess. If 230 is removed the wrong way, big tech would be the only internet forum survivors.
Or leave 230 in place, and let Facebook and Twitter censor everyone until their platforms are an empty wasteland of Chinese bots and everyone has moved on to other sites.
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.
Yes like law breaking things. Fan page for child sex? No. Fan page for Trump. Leave it alone. Fan page for Leftrds? Leave alone. So reddit and Facebook can't delete groups that are legal. Plotting terrorism.. fine? Then fine them after warning? Donate fine to children burn hospital.
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.
Then nothing is - right now what is important is to get the law changed. and if you keep bending over because you care more about TDW than seeing facebook and twitter burn, you need to think a bit more critically.
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.
Free market systems have a self correcting tendency. Government generally sucks at everything and makes things worse.
Since most Americans are pro free speech and have polar opposite values to big tech, people will naturally gravitate to a better product that is truly what we want.
What do we want? For leftists to stop censoring us and shoving Chicom propaganda and fake news down our throats.
Who’s offering that right now? .win. Rumble. Gab. Parler to name a few.
Have you seen the App Store ratings? Parler was at #1 for several days in a row.
Heck, same with the fake news media. Look how many people switched to OANN, Newsmax, infowars, Breitbart and other independent news outlets this year. The deep state and the liberal propaganda machine will inevitably fall in a true free market system with limited government. But as government continues to expand and more regulations are set in place, things tend to centralize and the crony lobbyists at places like Google generously donate to the right politicians to rig the rules in their favor.
We need to restore the 10th amendment so the government cannot subsidize winners and regulate would-be competitors to death.
Last, again, were conservatives. We need to bring back the “I can do it” attitude. If we’re not fighting to make government smaller then why are we conservatives? For that reason, I’d argue for less laws, less regulation, less taxes, make it easier for competitors to spring up and only use government to prosecute big tech for crimes they’ve committed under the existing 186,000 pages of laws we already have in the CFR.
They're already failing as we speak. Every single big social network (the top 4 being Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit) are seeing registrations decline, engagement decline, an increase in dormant and deleted accounts. And not in small numbers.
Registrations and content creation are exploding on Parler, Gab, Bitchute, Rumble, Minds, and decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Peertube. video.maga.host is a Peertube server.
The free market is solving this problem just like we all knew it would. All we really need to do to end it is for antitrust lawsuits against the big guys to grow legs. Google is already in the middle of one, and the state of NY is about to file one against Facebook in federal court in a few days.
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.
I don't see how that translates to "platforms cannot be common carriers".
But yes there's lots of alternatives to Twitter.
I can make an account on the well-respected and not-at-all-blocked-by-my-work-VPN site "Gab".
I can write an article on medium.
I can make a webpage.
I can robodial my message to random numbers in the phone book.
I can go outside and yell.
Many of those same arguments apply to phone calls. Taking the argument the other way, now that we don't have geographical restrictions with cell phones, T-Mobile should be able to censor links to TheDonald, and maybe even listen to our calls and decide to drop us if they don't like what we're saying, because there's competitors.
I think it would help limit the scope of the legislation if it were only applied to corporations (or big companies, by some definition), and small-time independent operators still had 230 protections. That's getting off the discussion of why we're repealing 230 though.
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
Because big tech are the ones that secretly want it removed is my guess. If 230 is removed the wrong way, big tech would be the only internet forum survivors.
Or leave 230 in place, and let Facebook and Twitter censor everyone until their platforms are an empty wasteland of Chinese bots and everyone has moved on to other sites.
Naive suggestion. The service would be flooded with illegal content, absent any moderation.
The solution you are looking for is simple: leave the abusive service.
Only use services that treat you fairly. Read the fine print before agreeing to the terms of service next time.
Can anyone register an account here?
Anyone can but when you make an account it said Trump supporters only so like I said not sure how it all works legally.
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
Yes like law breaking things. Fan page for child sex? No. Fan page for Trump. Leave it alone. Fan page for Leftrds? Leave alone. So reddit and Facebook can't delete groups that are legal. Plotting terrorism.. fine? Then fine them after warning? Donate fine to children burn hospital.
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
What is mIRC
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
Please still be a thing.
I feel like we’ve come full circle in a way internet wise
Make alt.bianaries great again
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.
Then nothing is - right now what is important is to get the law changed. and if you keep bending over because you care more about TDW than seeing facebook and twitter burn, you need to think a bit more critically.
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?
Free market systems have a self correcting tendency. Government generally sucks at everything and makes things worse.
Since most Americans are pro free speech and have polar opposite values to big tech, people will naturally gravitate to a better product that is truly what we want.
What do we want? For leftists to stop censoring us and shoving Chicom propaganda and fake news down our throats.
Who’s offering that right now? .win. Rumble. Gab. Parler to name a few.
Have you seen the App Store ratings? Parler was at #1 for several days in a row.
Heck, same with the fake news media. Look how many people switched to OANN, Newsmax, infowars, Breitbart and other independent news outlets this year. The deep state and the liberal propaganda machine will inevitably fall in a true free market system with limited government. But as government continues to expand and more regulations are set in place, things tend to centralize and the crony lobbyists at places like Google generously donate to the right politicians to rig the rules in their favor.
We need to restore the 10th amendment so the government cannot subsidize winners and regulate would-be competitors to death.
Last, again, were conservatives. We need to bring back the “I can do it” attitude. If we’re not fighting to make government smaller then why are we conservatives? For that reason, I’d argue for less laws, less regulation, less taxes, make it easier for competitors to spring up and only use government to prosecute big tech for crimes they’ve committed under the existing 186,000 pages of laws we already have in the CFR.
They're already failing as we speak. Every single big social network (the top 4 being Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Reddit) are seeing registrations decline, engagement decline, an increase in dormant and deleted accounts. And not in small numbers.
Registrations and content creation are exploding on Parler, Gab, Bitchute, Rumble, Minds, and decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Peertube. video.maga.host is a Peertube server.
The free market is solving this problem just like we all knew it would. All we really need to do to end it is for antitrust lawsuits against the big guys to grow legs. Google is already in the middle of one, and the state of NY is about to file one against Facebook in federal court in a few days.
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.
I don't see how that translates to "platforms cannot be common carriers".
But yes there's lots of alternatives to Twitter.
I can make an account on the well-respected and not-at-all-blocked-by-my-work-VPN site "Gab".
I can write an article on medium.
I can make a webpage.
I can robodial my message to random numbers in the phone book.
I can go outside and yell.
Many of those same arguments apply to phone calls. Taking the argument the other way, now that we don't have geographical restrictions with cell phones, T-Mobile should be able to censor links to TheDonald, and maybe even listen to our calls and decide to drop us if they don't like what we're saying, because there's competitors.
I think it would help limit the scope of the legislation if it were only applied to corporations (or big companies, by some definition), and small-time independent operators still had 230 protections. That's getting off the discussion of why we're repealing 230 though.
That’s the colloquial use for a reasonable interpretation of the statute
Best suggestion.