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

  • Downtime due to DDoS attacks still. I'm waiting on different providers to give me what I need to deal with it long-term.

3119967d0c

"a brain" - @REGENDarySumanai
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?
Yes.

The idea that a government organization that should be holding an evil megacorp like Google to account could be using their services is I N S A N E. Whatever one says about the EU, a lot of the support that EU bodies have provided for open sores software is in reaction to that sort of problem. Whether it's by directly employing people to create software, or providing grants to others to do so, critical infrastructure needs to be secured against hostile outside actors, and all of these 'FAANG' companies are at least as hostile towards the American people as any foreign government is.

Now.. it is true that the likes of Google, Facebook, etc aren't as hostile to the American structure of government as they are to the American people... but that only shows that they've captured the American structure of government, and that corrections need to be made.
 

Arm Pit Cream

5%er, Jupiterian Philosopher, Anglophobe, CSIS
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Kikestar of all people, came out with probably the most intelligent take I've seen on section 230 from a content creator


On the other hand Nick Fuentes :story:
Screenshot_20201231-002003_Twitter.jpg
https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1344315188288368654?s=19 (https://archive.md/BQaqV)
 

AnOminous

i will eat your fucking soul
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?
Actually, yes. Or at least I think they should. It would probably start out as an absolute disaster but eventually be functional within a few years.
 

HumanHive

Human Behavior is Retarded Behavior
kiwifarms.net

“What I’m called to do right now is hold the line and make sure we don’t lose my seat. Kelly Loeffler’s committed to do the same thing. So, we’re standing with the president on all the issues out there that we see in front of us, the 2,000 deal, the 230 — I’m sorry, the Section 230 issue, as well as the election commission that the president has called for.”

Pour one out for Nool this new years. He’ll need the liver damage.
 
I kind of get it, but at the same time, expecting a government to do everything itself is also not really feasible. Do you really expect the government to create its own intranet services, email system, email software, email server software, etc...?
I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what they used to do and still do for some stuff. Yes it increases the budget needed as you have to pay for IT specialists who'll be spending a lot of time doing minor maintenence and waiting for proverbial fires to put out once things get set up. But it's a far better alternative than government services being interfered with by random corporations. There's very little reason for the president and other officials to have a twitter account over a lightweight blog fully operated by the government for example.
 

The Curmudgeon

kiwifarms.net

“What I’m called to do right now is hold the line and make sure we don’t lose my seat. Kelly Loeffler’s committed to do the same thing. So, we’re standing with the president on all the issues out there that we see in front of us, the 2,000 deal, the 230 — I’m sorry, the Section 230 issue, as well as the election commission that the president has called for.”

Pour one out for Nool this new years. He’ll need the liver damage.
It's depressing to see politicians openly, and actively, advocating against our rights and freedom. I don't need to fear any supposed threats from overseas taking away my freedom. It's the idiots and assholes here at home who are threatening it every day.
 

Chujkurwa

We got silk pussy.
kiwifarms.net
Actually, yes. Or at least I think they should. It would probably start out as an absolute disaster but eventually be functional within a few years.
Especially when Google has kinda work to earn money, when the gubmint has trillions of dollars guaranteed each year and all they have to do is throw your ass to prison when you try to be clever with taxes. Maybe people in government work weren't smart enough to work at Google and that's the problem?
 

thismanlies

Sacred Cows Make The Juiciest Hamburgers
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Kikestar of all people, came out with probably the most intelligent take I've seen on section 230 from a content creator
View attachment 1819545

On the other hand Nick Fuentes :story:
View attachment 1819552
https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1344315188288368654?s=19 (https://archive.md/BQaqV)
Nick Fuentes said:
The Internet sucks now and it's never going to get better unless something is done to disrupt the consolidation of big tech power.

It's shit like this that reminds me why phrases like "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" exists.
 

likeacrackado

kiwifarms.net
FFS if 230 dies the Internet will be reduced to social media.
Nope. This level of hysteria reminds me of net neutrality. Maybe this is more warranted, but I'm doubtful of the supposed sweeping immediate effects it could have after the last couple times something like this happened. Unlike net neutrality the incoming admin doesn't seem bent on completing the work of their predecessor, more likely that this government and big tech collaborate more directly and openly than ever before to censor and financially ruin their enemies. Thats more of an ominous future than the unlikely repeal of some section of a law whose implications hold less sway in reality than the wording appears.
 

AnOminous

i will eat your fucking soul
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Nope. This level of hysteria reminds me of net neutrality. Maybe this is more warranted, but I'm doubtful of the supposed sweeping immediate effects it could have after the last couple times something like this happened.
Congress was concerned enough after the calamitous Stratton Oakmont decision that they passed § 230 nearly immediately afterwards, correctly recognizing the rapid disaster which would result if they left it in place. The results would not be immediate, except to sites like this where the owner has decided that's the tipping point where he says fuck it and gets out, but at first you'd have a trickle of litigation, and as the water got increasingly bloody it would soon turn into a feeding frenzy. It would also wreak havoc in state and federal courts flooded with now profitable litigation on the issue. You'd have a whole new cottage industry. Come to think of it I'd probably get into that racket myself because fuck it.
Thats more of an ominous future than the unlikely repeal of some section of a law whose implications hold less sway in reality than the wording appears.
That's absolute nonsense, though. In the 30 years since its passage, § 230's relatively modest language has transformed into near immunity for any third party to be held liable for the speech of any other person. The guts of it are essentially this:
"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."
Shepardize this and you'll see literally thousands of cases involving it, almost all of them throwing out lawsuits at the earliest preliminary stages, in state and federal courts all over the country.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

i will eat your fucking soul
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
It's funny the leftists shit their pants over "net neutrality" but when there's an actual threat to the free internet they cheer it on.
They're both threats. Also they're idiots. People saw net neutrality as something Obama supported, or claimed to support, and so immediately supported or opposed it based on that. In reality neither Obama nor the morons on either side had any clue what they were talking about.
 

SpiralStars

kiwifarms.net
They're both threats. Also they're idiots. People saw net neutrality as something Obama supported, or claimed to support, and so immediately supported or opposed it based on that. In reality neither Obama nor the morons on either side had any clue what they were talking about.
Net Neutrality was originally about not having 3rd parties interfere with content you wanted to access. After kicking around this ball, under Obama it just became a buzzword. Net Neutrality became about ISP service, 'fast lanes' and pricing equity and nothing about access interference. That version of Net Neutrality was about ingraining and justifying FCC regulatory control of the industry and not protecting the relationship between 2 parties on the internet.
 

Terrifik

kiwifarms.net
new rules annoused & stay down
 

Attachments

  • 12.18 Digital Copyright Act Discussion Draft.pdf
    1,016.1 KB · Views: 47
  • DCA Section by Section Final v3.pdf
    123.8 KB · Views: 61
Top