Regarding the apparent and imminent repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the future of this website. -

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    The [img] should essentially never be used outside of chat. It does not save disk space on the server because we use an image proxy to protect your IP address and to ensure people do not rely on bad third party services like Imgur for image hosting. I hope to have a fix from XF soon.

Null

Ooperator
kiwifarms.net
President Donald Trump has announced he will not renew a crucial spending bill without a total repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This gesture is receiving some bipartisan support and I now believe that he will succeed in his endeavor. President-Elect Joe Biden has stated identical intentions. I do not expect he will meet opposition from within the Government on this issue.

1607019117294.png1607019128652.png

I have explained in the past that if Section 230 of the CDA were repealed in full I would time the closure of the site with it being signed into law. This was not a joke. I will begin preparing my version of Nixon's In Event of Moon Disaster letter for if I am forced to close down the forum.

Some of you have called my rhetoric regarding Section 230 hyperbolic. It is not. I am currently being sued in two federal districts. I have been quoted by attorneys at $7500 to file three motions and have just one of them dealt with. That is with a Section 230 defense, a completely spurious lawsuit by a known vexatious litigant, and the assumption all filings are ruled on favorably. It will be thousands more to deal with the other. Without Section 230, I would be forced to fall back on more conventional (and time consuming, and therefore expensive) legal crafting, which argues the merits of each claim instead of just relying on the absolute defense that Section 230 has provided all of the Internet for almost 25 years: that this website is a platform, and claims which are not my words are not my problem.

The site is very hard to run. It is very expensive to run. Without the incredible, sustained generosity of its users, it would be impossible to run. However, without Section 230, mere generosity is not enough. The site would necessarily be profitable to deal with lawsuits over user generated content (and, without 230, there would be a lot of them). To make this site profitable, I would need to run ads and otherwise make it acceptable for third-parties to associate with. This would require robbing the site of everything that currently makes it a unique place. I refuse to do this.

You may think that I live overseas, and therefore do not have to worry about American law. This is false. I am not a fugitive from the law, I am not hiding from my government, and almost all of my real assets are in the United States. I am, more so than most other people, beholden to the rule of law in the United States. You cannot ask that I become a fugitive from the law, that I go to Russia or China and live my life there for the sake of this website. I would choose not to. Perhaps the next person to try this will, but this is where my line is. I am having my 28th birthday this month, and my priorities are changing to that of a man nearing his thirties. I can no longer be a renegade.


Clarification: This is regarding a full repeal. If it amounts to a reform, I will have to address the specifics when the time comes. If it amounts to nothing, there will be no change.


Update 12/5: The NDAA has passed through the senate 86-14, more than the 2/3rds majority to override a veto.


F.A.Q.
Q. When would the site go down?
A. When a bill repealing Section 230 of the CDA is signed into law. There is no bill to be signed yet, but Trump seems keen to force this through. If there is a reform passed, it may not be so dire.

Q. Are you ghosting if it goes down?
A. Yes.

Q. Would [something else I host] go down too?
A. Yes. Timelines TBD, after a bill is ready. Nothing would simply vanish overnight.

Q. Will there be an archive available?
A. When it looks like a bill will be put up for signature, I will create an archive torrent that has no user data in it. Content made after the archive is created will not be included.

Q. Would removing Section 230 force Twitter / Facebook / Google to stop banning me?
Q. Would removing Section 230 also force Twitter / Facebook / YouTube out of business?
A. No. Only the largest tech companies which could afford to handle these new lawsuits and an automated moderation system to keep their platforms squeaky clean will be able to survive in the US without Section 230. It would create a bar of entry for new websites as well.

Q. Why not just host in [this foreign country]?
A. I am American. The process of naturalizing and renouncing, to become truly judgement proof, is years long and expensive. Even if the server / company is in Judgementproofistan, I will not be, and even if I was, I am American. I cannot be expected to live my life like Andrew Anglin for a gossip website.

Q. I want the forum.
A. There will not be a designated successor regardless of what happens. I will have suggestions on what to do if we proceed to the bill signing phase. You are grossly underestimating the technological, financial, and personal burdens this site creates.


Something lighthearted.

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top