I have a new video channel, where I am discussing simple topics... I've just released my second video, the first video was on "rights". Check it out! Give me feedback!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvD2gj55nRo
Rumble: https://rumble.com/vcqkjd-what-does-it-mean-to-be-left-wing-right-wing.html
I have been working on internet forums for 24 years now. In the late 90s, I ran the most popular forum on the internet, which at it's peak was the 6th most popular website in the world. The disclaimer policy message you used to see about fair use and safe harbor, on thousands of websites before entering ... was written by me. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was written before I was involved with any of this stuff; but I was around to see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) happen. I was around to see Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) happen. Needless to say, I'm pretty bonafide when it comes to talking about these issues.
The onerous laws of the CDA, DMCA and COPPA have pretty much informed my decision making and my libertarian ideology during the past 20 years. I am firmly against censorship, government regulation and I am extremely pro-free speech. Section 230 of the CDA was specifically put in place to provide safe harbor to online platforms, to protect them from liability from content created by their users. It is an extremely important measure in promoting growth of the internet.
In case you are unaware... section 230 of the CDA provides safe harbor to online platforms, provided they are offering their platform in good faith to the end users. Good faith is pretty subjective, but over the years it has been understood to mean protecting the users from illegal activity, and protecting copyright holders. While the majority of the CDA is a restriction on free speech, this one particular provision somehow has come to dominate internet culture.
So Trump signed an executive order today, to limit 230 protection from online platforms in specific cases. This is government regulation and overreach, isn't it? I should be against this, shouldn't I? Well no... and no. In fact, I've been advocating for exactly what Trump did today for many years now. Let me explain why.
As I previously stated, 230 protection provides safe harbor, as long as your platform is provided in good faith. What is "good faith"? In my eyes, good faith means an effort to uphold the laws and rights of the end users. Laws, naturally meaning you should be moderating out illegal activity such as threatening calls-to-action, privacy violations, and what the government really cares about: piracy and copyright violations. The rights of the end users, I would understand to be: upholding their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly.
Trump's EO on section 230 of the CDA is huge. But it is NOT government regulation. If anything, its the exact opposite. There is a difference between a "positive right" and a "negative right". A negative right, is a right irrespective of others. The first amendment is a negative right. It's something you have naturally, and it does not require others for you to have it. Negative rights are inalienable, because no one gave you those rights. Your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness.
A positive right, is a right granted to you by others, such as the government. By this definition, a positive right, is not a right at all... but a privilege. And privileges can be revoked by the government who gave it to you. 230 protection is a positive right. Revoking 230 protection is not government interference, if anything, its a removal of government interference. It is quite literally, de-regulation.
For years, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc... have properly protected the rights of the end users. They moderated content only in the effect to protect it's users from harrasment, calls to action and illegal activity. 230 protection is afforded to online platforms BY DEFAULT. It is only when you violate your requirements of good faith that 230 protection could possibly be considered invalid. We've seen this over the years as the FBI takes down websites for hosting piracy and child pornagraphy.
But traditionaly, the government has never revoked 230 protection to websites for violating the first amendment; for violating the rights of their end users. Trump's EO ends this, and opens the door to protecting the free speech of all Americans on the internet. What he has done, is literally the first job of ALL public servants in America. Your local politicians, your mayors, your governors, and even the President has sworn to this job...
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What do I think opened this door? On July 9, 2019, the 2nd Curcuit Federal Court of Appeals made the CORRECT decision that Trump could not legally block users on his Twitter account. The accepted argument was that Trump's Twitter was a public forum to the first amendment: the right to petition the government a redress of grievances. Unfortunately, for Twitter, this decision should be a two way street.
If Trump can not block people on Twitter, because doing so removes a citizen's ability to petition their government a redress of grievances... then Twitter can not block people from Twitter either, for the same reason. This is a rather simple argument to make, and one that Trump has for some reason never argued in favor of revoking Twitter's 230 protection in the past.
But what did Trump go after Twitter for? For editorializing one of his tweets. News agencies and reporters DO NOT have 230 protection. They do not have safe harbor. They are responsible for the articles and content they publish. As such, they have no obligation to provide a neutral platform in good faith for their end users (viewers/readers). If they commit slander or libel, they are rightly subject to litigation and punishment.
Twitter has retained their 230 protection because they arguably remained a platform. But the moment they editorialized one of Trump's tweets; a tweet in which he was posting an OPINION, they ceased to be a platform. At that moment, in Trump's eyes, they became a publisher, and became subject to the same litigation and punishment as any news outlet. I would argue they ceased to be a neutral platform years ago, but I'm just a nobody, and my opinion doesn't matter.
Lol. The irony is palpable.
Trump fought for us, alone in the swamp for five years. I will not begrudge him for taken a well deserved rest.
The MAGA movement he started will continue on. He has opened the eyes of millions to the corruption in DC. The left is calling for a cleansing of Trump supporters, after refusing to allow transparency in this clearly fraudulent election.
Our complaints and doubts do not end without Trump. If anything, they have been affirmed. Trump has now handed the reigns of keeping our Republic, to us.
The left has been calling to "become ungovernable" for years. The media and Democrats cheered them on. Even as they burnt down cities and killed 50 people this summer alone... A few dozen Trump supporters burnt nothing and killed nobody yesterday. And the media is apoplectic. "The problem is that they're misplacing their anger and rage."
Completely disagree. BLM/Antifa were mad at cops and the "system"; so they burnt down the neighborhoods of their peers and killed their fellow citizens. THAT is misplaced anger and rage. The media and the left supported this for some reason. As billions in damage destroyed what was left of already dying cities, and they killed nearly 50 people this past year alone. Trump supporters are mad at the government and corrupt politicians... so they broke a few windows in the heart of government. That is not misplaced anger. That is firmly placed. They burnt no property and killed no one. In fact, they were even nice enough to respect the velvet ropes in statuary hall. If it was BLM, those statues would be in the river. If this was BLM, Capitol Hill would have been burnt to the ground.
So when the entire country sees BLM/Antifa rioting for YEARS, and suffering no consequences... not only were there no consequences, they were given $10 BILLION in funds. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were funding bail for these rioters. After they burn down a city, the mayors of those cities would name a fucking city street/square after them! In Seattle, they took control of 6 blocks of Capitol Hill for an entire month; declared independance from the United States (a pure act of Insurrection) and they police chief called it a "summer of love". The media called it a great representation of democracy. What does that tell you? It tells you that VIOLENT RIOTS WORK. That the left is not only okay with violence in the name of "justice", they actively support it!
And now the left is trying to say violence is NOT the answer? They try to say "if this was BLM storming the Capitol, they would have been shot". They DID storm the capitol, they tried to burn the city down in May. Not a single BLM member has been killed by police forces during their active riots during the ENTIRETY of last year. You know who was killed? A Trump supporter; in under less than an hour. These people think you are fucking stupid. The left in both congress and the media are now calling for a "cleansing" for all Trump supporters. That anyone who supported Trump should be expelled or locked up. This is the party that calls themselves the party of unity. These people think you are fucking stupid. They are the party of slavery and they hated Trump because he was on the side of the slaves.
YOU... are the slave.
Trump supporters tried everything they could to do things legally. They filed lawsuits, just to be told they filed too early. So they re-filed, just to be told they filed too late. Thousands of sworn affidavits and hours of testimony; ignored by the governments and the courts. Cases thrown out on procedural grounds, never on evidentiary grounds. We have been in a civil war for a long time now. The media has just been hiding it from you. Pretending media wasn't banning conservatives; changing the meaning of words or attacking people who say benign things like "Merry Christmas". Pretending BLM/Antifa weren't burning cities to the ground. This past year, governments have shut down your local businesses, but allowed their big business friends to stay open. The largest transfer of wealth in history. They have locked you in your homes, while flouting their own lockdown rules. They have taxed $2800 of your savings away with the recent stimulus bill via inflation; and pretend they are helping you by "giving" you $600.
You are being conditioned to believe that people who stand up for their freedoms are selfish, extreme, irresponsible, hateful, irrational and lawless. It's time to wake up. Fighting for fair and transparent elections is not an insurrection or a coup; fighting against it is. Notice that all the insanely-rich CEOs have immediately embraced the incoming administration and have begun licking boots to the government. Fascism is the marriage of big business and big government, working for the benefit of both; usually at the expense of the citizen. Soon, the left will learn what the word fascism actually means.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The team at .WIN has just updated their login system to share a unified single-sign-on between all the .WINs. So I have updated my unofficial android app to support this new login method. If you already use the app, you should receive a notice for the new version the next time you open the app. Just download it and install.
Version 1.0.6 https://github.com/Jaxel/TheDonald.win/releases/tag/1.0.6
This app is in no way related to or supported by the fine folks here at TheDonald.win. I wrote it; and if it breaks your phone/tablet, do not blame them, blame me. The app does not support any of the other .WIN communities, it is purely for TheDonald.win.
They have him on a ventilator. He's getting remdesivr and plasma. But he's high risk because of asthma and a history of respiratory problems. Very worried.
I have been working on internet forums for 24 years now. In the late 90s, I ran the most popular forum on the internet, which at it's peak was the 6th most popular website in the world. The disclaimer policy message you used to see about fair use and safe harbor, on thousands of websites before entering ... was written by me. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was written before I was involved with any of this stuff; but I was around to see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) happen. I was around to see Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) happen. Needless to say, I'm pretty bonafide when it comes to talking about these issues.
The onerous laws of the CDA, DMCA and COPPA have pretty much informed my decision making and my libertarian ideology during the past 20 years. I am firmly against censorship, government regulation and I am extremely pro-free speech. Section 230 of the CDA was specifically put in place to provide safe harbor to online platforms, to protect them from liability from content created by their users. It is an extremely important measure in promoting growth of the internet.
In case you are unaware... section 230 of the CDA provides safe harbor to online platforms, provided they are offering their platform in good faith to the end users. Good faith is pretty subjective, but over the years it has been understood to mean protecting the users from illegal activity, and protecting copyright holders. While the majority of the CDA is a restriction on free speech, this one particular provision somehow has come to dominate internet culture.
So Trump signed an executive order today, to limit 230 protection from online platforms in specific cases. This is government regulation and overreach, isn't it? I should be against this, shouldn't I? Well no... and no. In fact, I've been advocating for exactly what Trump did today for many years now. Let me explain why.
As I previously stated, 230 protection provides safe harbor, as long as your platform is provided in good faith. What is "good faith"? In my eyes, good faith means an effort to uphold the laws and rights of the end users. Laws, naturally meaning you should be moderating out illegal activity such as threatening calls-to-action, privacy violations, and what the government really cares about: piracy and copyright violations. The rights of the end users, I would understand to be: upholding their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly.
Trump's EO on section 230 of the CDA is huge. But it is NOT government regulation. If anything, its the exact opposite. There is a difference between a "positive right" and a "negative right". A negative right, is a right irrespective of others. The first amendment is a negative right. It's something you have naturally, and it does not require others for you to have it. Negative rights are inalienable, because no one gave you those rights. Your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness.
A positive right, is a right granted to you by others, such as the government. By this definition, a positive right, is not a right at all... but a privilege. And privileges can be revoked by the government who gave it to you. 230 protection is a positive right. Revoking 230 protection is not government interference, if anything, its a removal of government interference. It is quite literally, de-regulation.
For years, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc... have properly protected the rights of the end users. They moderated content only in the effect to protect it's users from harrasment, calls to action and illegal activity. 230 protection is afforded to online platforms BY DEFAULT. It is only when you violate your requirements of good faith that 230 protection could possibly be considered invalid. We've seen this over the years as the FBI takes down websites for hosting piracy and child pornagraphy.
But traditionaly, the government has never revoked 230 protection to websites for violating the first amendment; for violating the rights of their end users. Trump's EO ends this, and opens the door to protecting the free speech of all Americans on the internet. What he has done, is literally the first job of ALL public servants in America. Your local politicians, your mayors, your governors, and even the President has sworn to this job...
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What do I think opened this door? On July 9, 2019, the 2nd Curcuit Federal Court of Appeals made the CORRECT decision that Trump could not legally block users on his Twitter account. The accepted argument was that Trump's Twitter was a public forum to the first amendment: the right to petition the government a redress of grievances. Unfortunately, for Twitter, this decision should be a two way street.
If Trump can not block people on Twitter, because doing so removes a citizen's ability to petition their government a redress of grievances... then Twitter can not block people from Twitter either, for the same reason. This is a rather simple argument to make, and one that Trump has for some reason never argued in favor of revoking Twitter's 230 protection in the past.
But what did Trump go after Twitter for? For editorializing one of his tweets. News agencies and reporters DO NOT have 230 protection. They do not have safe harbor. They are responsible for the articles and content they publish. As such, they have no obligation to provide a neutral platform in good faith for their end users (viewers/readers). If they commit slander or libel, they are rightly subject to litigation and punishment.
Twitter has retained their 230 protection because they arguably remained a platform. But the moment they editorialized one of Trump's tweets; a tweet in which he was posting an OPINION, they ceased to be a platform. At that moment, in Trump's eyes, they became a publisher, and became subject to the same litigation and punishment as any news outlet. I would argue they ceased to be a neutral platform years ago, but I'm just a nobody, and my opinion doesn't matter.
