Chairman of the mammary regulation committee
After the shitfest at congress this shit is getting passed, we're fucked, the world is fucked since all countries will follow through with this
I love the irony of social justice keeping kiwi farms alive.View attachment 1890627
Social justice groups warn Biden against throwing out Section 230
‘Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights’
By Adi Robertson@thedextriarchy Jan 27, 2021, 6:00am EST
Share this story
Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
All sharing options
Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
A group of 75 activist groups and nonprofits have urged against sweeping changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, warning that it could silence marginalized communities while making online moderation harder.
“Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech,” the letter says. The law protects websites and apps from being sued over user-generated content — making it safer to operate social networks, comment sections, or hosting services. “Overly broad changes to Section 230 could disproportionately harm and silence marginalized people, whose voices have been historically ignored by mainstream press outlets.”
The letter is signed by a variety of groups supporting racial justice, sex workers’ rights, and free speech online — including the Wikimedia Foundation, Fight for the Future, and the Sex Workers Outreach Project. It’s addressed to Congress and the administration of President Joe Biden, both of which have shown an appetite for changing Section 230.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SECTION 230
All the threats to the internet’s most important legal protection — updated regularly.
To demonstrate the potential harm of major changes, the authors point to FOSTA-SESTA, a 2018 rule that removed legal protections for hosting prostitution-related content. “The impacts of this law were immediate and destructive, limiting the accounts of sex workers and making it more difficult to find and help those who were being trafficked online,” they write. They’re calling to pass a 2019 proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who called for a study of how the law impacted sex workers. At least one independent survey, performed by the signatory Hacking//Hustling, found a negative effect on many participants’ safety and financial stability.
The letter also notes that Section 230 lets companies remove objectionable posts without fear of lawsuits from disgruntled users. Amazon, for instance, invoked it to defend suspending the social network Parler over violent threats. “Congress should act to address the harms of Big Tech through meaningful legislative action on data privacy, civil rights and others fronts, and enforcement of existing antitrust laws. But uncareful efforts to poke holes in Section 230 could result in the exact opposite outcome,” write the authors.
The Trump administration pushed to rewrite Section 230, aiming to discourage social media sites from removing or fact-checking former President Donald Trump’s posts as well as other conservative content. Several Republican lawmakers backed similar changes. The incoming Biden administration also appears critical of Section 230, but on opposite grounds since Biden has claimed the law allows companies like Facebook to host false information. (The First Amendment protects many false statements.) Gina Raimondo, Biden’s nominee for Commerce Department secretary, expressed support yesterday for changing the law.
It's where the elites pretend to rule on behalf of the people, and pretend to care about the will of the people, all while doing all they can to increase their own power and make a shit load of money for themselves. And this applies to pretty much all 'democratic' systems of governments nowadays.The fuck is "democracy"?
Can you drown it with beer?
I would go as far to say the entire concept of prosecuting a publisher for the writings of an individual, digital or otherwise, is unconstitutional and also mega ‘tarded. (No, I don’t think the entire New York Times should be legally fucked over just because Mr/Mrs/Xrs Literally Who wrote about how the president totally shat themselves.)Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional.
This isn't a ruling, this is the Supreme Court setting aside the federal appeals court ruling. That previous ruling had stated that Trump did violate the 1A by blocking people from his Twitter account. In response, the Supreme Court has vacated the ruling saying the case no longer has any relevance (because Trump is banned from Twitter, and because the nature of Twitter blocking *all* people from seeing Trump's tweets is a much greater concern that Trump blocking a *few* people from seeing his). Thomas's opinion doesn't call S230 unconstitutional, it calls it problematic - and even then, the only practical effects of this ruling are with regards to vacating Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute.
It doesn't. This is Thomas's opinion in the literal sense. There is nothing here stating that the section is unconstitutional.Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional. Still reading.
View attachment 2060873View attachment 2060874View attachment 2060875View attachment 2060876View attachment 2060877View attachment 2060878View attachment 2060879View attachment 2060880View attachment 2060881View attachment 2060882View attachment 2060883View attachment 2060884
No it fucking doesn't. Wtf who is saying that and why?Allegedly, the USSC has called 230 unconstitutional. Still reading.
I disagree about 230 itself. I think it is more about what social media corporations are allowed to do. Section 230 was supposed to be a shield to protect ISPs from their moderation if they chose not to delete content someone demanded be deleted, not a sword to claim to be more mighty than the President and able to attack people themselves without any recourse by the people they fuck over.Thomas is laying out a lot of groundwork and signalling that some serious challenges to both 230 the technocratic overlords would be welcomed by the court.
Thomas's allusion to email highlights this a little more clearly: you grandmother could always get another phone account, or even use someone else's phone in the interim. If your email was kerblammed, you could always just make another one. They're all fairly decentralized as a result.Imagine if the phone company could cancel your grandmother's phone account and say you weren't allowed to talk to her any more because she said nigger 10 years ago. Or even yesterday.