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

[Shitassdeaddude]

The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.

So the usual sperging he does on twitter. I knew I shouldn't have gotten too worried.

 

[Bender]

Correct. His EO "clarifies language" and directs federal organs to do probing.

So either congress or the senate (dunno the difference there) need to side with him to actually repeal the law, if I'm understanding this correctly?

 

[I can't imagine]

So the usual sperging he does on twitter. I knew I shouldn't have gotten too worried.

The problem isn't so much him sperging as usual. It's that there are people in the Republican (and Democrat) parties very much interested in "fixing" the Section 230 "problem". It probably won't be just them repealing it, but replacing it with a "new, better" (ha ha) manner of dealing with liability protections for internet service providers.

So, where the problem comes in is that this shows he's at least amenable to the idea of seriously changing things. The thing about his sperging is that it's usually about something nobody in Congress really wants to do, or at least not enough to actually fight the battle for it. But Section 230 is something that some of them actually would be interested in doing something about, and after the election, it's certainly possible they could do it.

That's where the scary part comes in, because if they do decide to do something about it, it could go anywhere. They might manage to change things in a way that screws over Twitter, but also happens to cause harm to other platforms (intentionally or not). KF, in specific, is a really small fish in the pond, and could easily wind up as collateral damage without anybody even really meaning to.

 

[AnOminous]

KF, in specific, is a really small fish in the pond, and could easily wind up as collateral damage without anybody even really meaning to.

And god forbid some cunt like Katherine Clark, who specifically hates sites like this, gets involved and wants a save the troons clause. This site gets fucked even with a neutral repeal of Section 230 but never mind if anyone decides "and fuck that guy specifically" about us.

 

[3119967d0c]

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

Why on Earth do you think Twitter would oppose regulation? They're a monopoly, they want nice convienient government rules in place so that they can blame 'the government' for censorship they conduct, and generally avoid criticism. This is how capitalism works lol.

Trump wont get anything.

This is silly. Trump's masters want social media sites to be forced to censor BDS activism even more. He certainly isn't going to get free reign on Twitter, but he will get that.

The EFF will keep you up to date on the attempts to change it. Once something's finite, the EFF will probably have a system to contact your representatives and the EFF is currently suing to invalidate FOSTA's claw backs. Make it an issue in the election year and hope that congress doesn't shove it through in the lame duck session.

The EFF might oppose changes that impose extra costs on hosting companies, but they couldn't care less about free speech.

 

[fat ugly sped]

Why on Earth do you think Twitter would oppose regulation? They're a monopoly, they want nice convienient government rules in place so that they can blame 'the government' for censorship they conduct, and generally avoid criticism. This is how capitalism works lol.

If you have to comply with complex rules or get sued out of existence, it's a hell of a lot harder to start a competitor in your garage and force the incumbent tech companies to spend 9 figures buying you out to protect your monopoly.

 

[Sam Losco]

So either congress or the senate (dunno the difference there) need to side with him to actually repeal the law, if I'm understanding this correctly?

Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

@Null, I think it would be a good idea to put the Patriot Act into the OP since that does play a role in holding Net Neutrality back at the conceptual level, and I think it would be in everyone's interest to generate cross-interest in the two subject matters. I think there are too few people invested in getting rid of it since it doesn't cause everyday problems for them despite the threat imposed by it.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf

 

[Petrusha]

Null, if you ever ran for political office, I would unironically vote for you.
Anyway good luck to Americans and godspeed

 

[Strange Wilderness]

Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.

Good point about Checks and Balances and how since both Political Parties are at each others throats at times it could kill whichever bill is introduced but don't go around thinking this is the magic bullet that will stop the repeal of Section 230. Biden, the Dems Presidential candidate, is in favor of killing Section 230 which means the repeal of Section 230 is an accepted goal of the DNC and they could very well get enough members in the House to vote in favor of any bill that kills it. There needs to be push against the repeal of Section 230 directed at both the Republicans and the Democrats because both parties seem in favor of repealing it and it needs to be made apparent to both parties that the repeal of it will cost them votes

 

[AnOminous]

Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both would have to pass a new bill to repeal an existing one and then Trump (or whoever is the POTUS) would sign. It takes all three. If any one doesn't pass, it's dead.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, but I can't see that happening here and the Supreme Court can pick and choose which cases they even review.

It's very unlikely to happen, although there is a challenge in the works.

The family of a victim of Hamas terrorists is suing Facebook over Hamas postings.

https://mlexmarketinsight.com/insights-center/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/data-privacy-and-security/facebook-could-face-first-supreme-court-challenge-to-section-230-immunity

The Second Circuit held that Facebook is immune under Section 230 even for posts by literal terrorists.

 

[Akumaten]

Everyday I'm convinced that Roy Cohn's infuence never left Trump.

 

[Dong Schlong Phil]

I highly doubt that any 230 repeal will manage to make it through, for one reason: money. Billion dollar lobbying entities backed by google, facebook, et al will fight this tooth and nail, because even if this 230 repeal would benefit them int he short run by eliminating their competitors, they know that no modern internet company would survive. To avoid hundreds of lolsuits per day, youtube, facebook, twitter, ece would have to vet every single post, and that would be far too expensive to do, since you couldnt risk an AI fucking up and letting a post through. The highly mediated system would also obliterate engagement from users, dramatically reducing data collection, ad interaction, and overall income, along with halting the political power of these institutions. Even if the loss of money wouldnt didnt stop them,t he lost of political power would.

My conspiracy nut worry about this point is that Google etc want to get into China.
Google already has tried implementing some forced censorship features ((like the stuff on youtube where your negative china comment gets deleted if it is written in chinese)) and they want into the chinese market.
If this 230 repeal goes through then they get "the greenlight" to implement certain censorship features globally and that might open the door to china.

 

[dickass42069]

Why the fuck was he the only other option? Couldn't have we gotten an actual competent person and not a fucking reality tv star?

Somehow none of the seventeen other republican candidates were competent enough to win against Trump

The EO is toothless as it is. If anything a weird lawsuit might crop up challenging Twitter but it's not nearly the catastrophe repealing it would be.

It's mostly toothless except for the part that tells Turbo supreme giga XP Smackdown Raw I-Series ultra Boomer William "Ban encryption" Barr to come up with legislation which "would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order. " There's enough wiggle room in section six to make Chinese internet look like usenet

 

[LolNoIPLeaksEvenLMFAO]

So guillotines? Hell half the major cities are burning so the cops are busy... just saying.

 

[Calooby]

So guillotines? Hell half the major cities are burning so the cops are busy... just saying.

It's called secret para-military groups.

 

[Tikbalang]

Null, if you ever ran for political office, I would unironically vote for you.
Anyway good luck to Americans and godspeed

Reminds me of some people literally voted for Punking Dog in 2016 election

 

[Barry Scott]

It's called secret para-military groups.

I know just the men to get.

 

[kuniqsX]

I forget what documentary it was, but there was one on the early days of the crisis in 2008.

Remember in the riot thread there was this one black lady going, "Why are you letting us destroy our city?"

The banks basically went, "Why did you let us do this? We need more regulation!"

Why were they saying that? Because they were shitting themselves that they basically destroyed the world and the plebs would come for them with pitchforks, rope and guillotines. When they realized it'd only fuck over the world, and not destroy it, they backed down. The rich only understand violence. That's the only language that will force them to comply with anything.

The only time you'll see them change is when they fuck up big enough that we, collectively as a society, start killing them en masse, dragging them from their homes and their private jets and beating them to death and dragging their bodies through the streets. They can no longer be dealt with like people.

I understand your sentiment, but to quote the greatest yutub entertainer of our time "You're like a 4yo trying to fight Hulk Hogan"

You have 3 options: die in the revolution, succeed with the revolution only for the revolutionaries to fuck up even more and get exploited by survivors, join the rich and shrug at all this misery. Too bad you can't really join them without an invitation anymore...

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I understand your sentiment, but to quote the greatest yutub entertainer of our time "You're like a 4yo trying to fight Hulk Hogan"

You have 3 options: die in the revolution, succeed with the revolution only for the revolutionaries to fuck up even more and get exploited by survivors, join the rich and shrug at all this misery. Too bad you can't really join them without an invitation anymore...

I guess option 2 is just the best you could hope for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯