Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring


The Law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (short, plain english)
The Executive Order: Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (short, plain english)
My explanation, Additional information from the EFF.

Here are competing visions for changing Section 230, what is possibly the most important piece of legislation ever passed regarding the Internet.

President Donald Trump

Trump's "hard pitch" is full revocation of Section 230. This would mean all platforms are civilly liable for every single thing posted on them. Every site from Facebook, to Twitter, to 4chan, to the Kiwi Farms would shutter overnight or begin a sort of censorship and whitelisting you can't even imagine.

Former Vice President Joe Biden
>In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, former Vice President Joe Biden called for tech’s biggest liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to be “revoked, immediately.”

Same as Trump.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)
S.1914 - Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act

Companies do not get Section 230(c) immunity unless they receive a certificate from the FTC certifying they do not moderate a specific political agenda, party, or politician. Hawley's bill only applies to companies with more than 30m American users, or 300m Global users, or $500m annual income.

Hawley's bill has no conspors, and in fact he cosponsors a much worse bill.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
S.3398 - EARN IT Act of 2020

Establishes a new committee horrifically titled "National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention". In plain English, any bill having anything to do with protecting kids is actually designed to fuck you. This committee is loaded with 19 people (retard boomers) from and delegated by various members of the government.

This committee sets forth best practices. They can make anything a best practice (i.e. don't use https://, record user IPs forever, require a real name in the back end). If you don't do what they ask, you can be sued. It doesn't state its intents outright, it shrouds them by establishing this committee.

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL-1)
Matt Gaetz (my congressman) has expressed interest in changing Section 230 and has vocally shown support for Hawley's law but is not currently a cosponsor. He has not given specifics on what he'd want to change.

In his podcast Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz, he has said he has filed complaints with the FEC regarding the platforms manipulating the elections. He likened the "characterizations of Trump's tweets" with political billboards and said they should be regulated similarly.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI-02) and Paul Gossar (R, AZ-04)
Their plan is to add carve outs to Section 230 which will impact services using user data without their explicit consent. This will likely cause no problems and instead just add yet a-fucking-nother swarm of GDPR-style notices and confirmation pop-ups.

My Plan for the Banks
All they have to do to fix online censorship is fix payment networks. No "non-kosher" alternatives to Twitter or Facebook can exist when monetization is not possible. The payment networks Mastercard and Visa card do more "editorialization" than any platform does.

This process is two fold:
1. Change parts of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act so banks are less liable for illegal activity done by Americans and their businesses, and
2. regulate the payment networks (MC, Visa, Amex, Diner's) so that they cannot kick Americans off their networks or blacklist them without actual fraud or court orders.

That's all it would take to wake up in a better world, but it will never happen. They'd shoot Matt Gaetz in the fucking head if he proposed something like this

Alternative for Regulating Platforms
If you want to make Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube liable for banning and censoring people, the Government should just create recourse for people wrongfully terminated from major platforms. Let people banned from AdSense / YouTube / Twitter / Facebook sue for some sort of damage in civil court.

What revoking Section 230 does is unfair. Imagine if Starbucks didn't let black people buy coffee at their store, so instead of just making it so they can be sued for that, the Government decided to regulate all food and drink venues in the United States as hospitals to spite them. That is the sort of logical non sequitur this move is.
Last edited:


The Earth, Wind, and Fire of September
True & Honest Fan
It's never coming. The problem is the banks. It is always the banks. No representative or senator since JFK has wanted to touch the banks and force them to treat people fairly.
Why don't you contact your representatives (or some "sufficiently good/powerful" nonprofit) to fight against the banks? I'm sure enough representatives/nonprofits will be able to endure against the banks.

Also glad to see you've calmed down a lot now.

Matt Gaetz is my congressman and someone I've met in person. He's even retweeted me, oh jeez.
Was meeting him a nice experience or no?
Last edited:


The Aleph
Providing that section 230 is repealed, the worst thing about it being repealed to every US Citizen in any country that the United States or has an extradition treaty to the United States.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Which means eg. that the user of kiwifarms can as the publisher of the Christchurch shooting.

Otis Boi

Chunky Cow man extraordinaire
Honestly I'm more scared of the EARN It act then anything else. I know nothing good can come from it. If it every gets passed I'm pretty much done with the internet. I can't believe Twitter couldn't keep its foot out of its mouth for more the a few minutes.

Christ what a shit year this has been