117
Comments (14)
sorted by:
9
oldschoolkiwi 9 points ago +9 / -0

The ultimate in cuck Rhino right there

6
fadelio [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

Ole Light in the Loafers Lindsey has a bill coming out tomorrow to do something about section 230 in a few years.

It's bullshit.

The bill just kicks the can down the road a few years and gives congress time to 'figure out' what to do. Fuck that! We have watched countless conservatives get deplatformed, and Even the president is censored and has videos removed from you tube.

by putting out a delay bill he's doing his favorite thing: pretending to be helpful while fucking you in the wrong hole

4
I_no_asshoe 4 points ago +4 / -0

I am more for reform and clarification of the rules so that independent content creators don’t get crushed.

Closing just a few loopholes will destroy big tech but help the up-and-comers!

3
fadelio [S] 3 points ago +4 / -1

Me too, but we don't have several years of commie propaganda to wait.

Google, facebook, and twitter aren't platforms and should not get a free pass to shit on wrong think whilst reaping the benefits of zero liability.

3
2a4life 3 points ago +3 / -0

As an owner of a website, I like 230. However, it is flawed and should be replaced not fixed

2
jojoaz2 2 points ago +2 / -0

NEOCON Trash

2
Jitch76 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lady G six dix

2
jgardner 2 points ago +2 / -0

So, I have a bit of a wakeup call for you guys.

Section 230 is pretty dangerous stuff. If we don't rewrite it or replace it correctly, thedonald.win could disappear.

We are past the point where we can allow websites to do "whatever they want". When they were toys, and people didn't see much value in the internet, that was fine. But as people have built their lives on the internet, it has become apparent that there are some inherent natural rights on the internet, and that businesses cannot be allowed to infringe upon them.

Simply repealing section 230 is not going to fix all the problems. It's going to create a whole new batch of problems.

I am by no means a RINO. I do want to see 230 revoked and replaced with something sensible. But even me, who has spent the last 20 years working on the internet, even I don't know what the right answer.

Right now I'm torn between turning everything into 4chan or turning everything into "Facebook by Government." I think the 4chan route is better, but even here we ban people because of what they say, when what they say is not by any stretch of the imagination illegal.

Something has to happen, but I don't know what that is. I don't know if the president has a plan either. I don't know anyone in the world who has a plan.

2
fadelio [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

If there is a word I'm not allowed to say on your site then you do not deserve to have the wonderful benefit of immunity from a lawsuit.

1
jgardner 1 point ago +1 / -0

4chan then! If I setup a site for members of my church, nothing can stop you from sharing porn on it.

1
fadelio [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you hold your church website out as a platform for the whole world then you don't get to restrict my speech. Porn is not the same and it's a disingenuous argument you're making.

1
jgardner 1 point ago +1 / -0

You just made my point.

1
fadelio [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

By pointing out that church websites can and do restrict access to its members? Are you for cereal?

2
Magamom2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

He’s annoying