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

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
The reason behind the desire to remove section 230 was started because it was revealed Trump wears diapers and shits himself - that is true.

The reason why the removal of Section 230 would benefit a government as he envisions it is because they can decide what is true and what is not; and order the Attorney General to prosecute any internet site and shut them down if they deem the content "untrue". Essentially, you hand over control of what is true or not to the government. Don't think the government is doing a good job - that suddenly becomes Sedition and you can be prosecuted. Don't like the President? That becomes undermining the government and democracy and you'll get prosecuted. Don't like the ruling parties real estate deals? that becomes defamation without a court stating those crimes were real.

This suits a government when they are in control but not when their opposition is. So watch out no matter what your political views.

Imagine today if Trump had the choice of deciding what on the Internet - and by extension TV and cable and Newspapers was true and untrue and should be ordered to be removed. This is the consequence of no Section 230.

We all shit talk on this forum; so imagine one day you are a Trump supporter and you love the fact you can shit talk Biden but can say anything one day, and then decide one day to call all Jews Fuckheads, and then Trump decides that's untruthful and you should be prosecuted for it.

Free speech is free speech. True or not. The choice we make is in what we believe and fuck Trump. The GOP will never support its removal - no sane person would.

So don't back the horse just because Trump says it is effecting all of us - it isn't.
 

The handsome tard

RealHandsomeJack - Based HERO CEO of Hyperion
kiwifarms.net
If you believe the GOP even understands what 230 entails then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Let me tell you a little secret

Almost no politician really understands the whole system.

I think its a case where we overcomplicated shit so bad that its unrealistic to expect...ANYONE to get how the larger thing works. All they know is that "it works" and its too grand to get HOW it works. The few that may have a slightly better idea are working tiredlessly to control whatever they can of it but even they themselves might not even know entirely themselves.

Politics nowadays are a bunch of jack offs trying to justify their paychecks poorly.
 

GrimPortents

Better not get your hopes up
kiwifarms.net
Let me tell you a little secret

Almost no politician really understands the whole system.

I think its a case where we overcomplicated shit so bad that its unrealistic to expect...ANYONE to get how the larger thing works. All they know is that "it works" and its too grand to get HOW it works. The few that may have a slightly better idea are working tiredlessly to control whatever they can of it but even they themselves might not even know entirely themselves.
Of course, I'm just blackpilled at this point. Makes it that much sweeter when I'm wrong.
Politics nowadays are a bunch of jack offs trying to justify their paychecks poorly.
No arguments from me on that. But they have their believers. Shit's a goddamn cult no matter the side of the aisle.
 

Pope of Degeneracy

Red Flower Consoomer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
20201228_165555.jpg


 

Strange Wilderness

kiwifarms.net
so are we in the clear?
I'm thinking yes. House Dems have said they won't amend the Spending Bill and the Bill has been signed so at worst it's a waiting game until the Bill takes effect. With the NDAA both chambers of Congress will most likely vote to override Trumps veto. The fact that Null isn't spazing out doomposting tells me that neither of these Bills are going to sneak in a clause to repeal Section 230.

That being said the whole thing isn't over yet. Congress might approve a separate bill which Trump would gladly sign. There's also the fact that Biden wants to repeal Section 230 and has a better chance of doing so. He's going to have Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress unless something happens in Georgia, and he has more political capital and dirt to work with than Trump.
 

DNA_JACKED

Pronouns are Ni/Gg/Er: proud transracialwomankin
kiwifarms.net
I'm thinking yes. House Dems have said they won't amend the Spending Bill and the Bill has been signed so at worst it's a waiting game until the Bill takes effect. With the NDAA both chambers of Congress will most likely vote to override Trumps veto. The fact that Null isn't spazing out doomposting tells me that neither of these Bills are going to sneak in a clause to repeal Section 230.

That being said the whole thing isn't over yet. Congress might approve a separate bill which Trump would gladly sign. There's also the fact that Biden wants to repeal Section 230 and has a better chance of doing so. He's going to have Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress unless something happens in Georgia, and he has more political capital and dirt to work with than Trump.
Big tech likely doesnt want it repealed either. Just because they have the billions to fight in court doesnt mean they want to be caught up in 450 lawsuits every day over stupid shit they now have to fight or pay for, and if they start clamping down hard on what you can post and requiring verification, user engagement will fall through the floor. With it goes ad revenue and user data mining pricing. As power hungry as the likes of silicon valley are, they are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the leg by removing their own legal protection to own the tiny sites.

And that is not counting corporate espionage. Sure facebook can tank tons of tiny lawsuits (or can they? Big Tech is not as profitable as some may believe) but what about a single massive lawsuit from Google because some ad run on Facebook slandered google with "hate speech" or some dumb shit? The big guys would immediately be able to use that power to eat each other. What about some Chinese corporation deciding to sue Google for some reason in american court? It would open pandoras box and wreak havok.

Democrats, assuming they get both houses, would immediately begin infighting. There is plenty that neolibs have said on social media that could get them sued by the SJW new left without section 230. They'd never be able to agree on how to cut section 230. Sure, Biden said he wanted it gone, he also said he stood by BLM, then cut all contact with them within 12 hours of the election. Big tech is well aware how much this could cost them, and their lobbyists will likely ensure that Biden's puppet master knows repealing is a terrible idea.
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
He's going to have Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress unless something happens in Georgia, and he has more political capital and dirt to work with than Trump.
I just hope that if Trump doesn't manage to ram it through, his tantrum gives the whole concept a bad reputation. Or they figure out some modification that actually just fucks Twitter and Facebook and Google but fat chance of that.
 

ZeroCool

Grey-Hat Hacker
kiwifarms.net
Trump is still besting the war drums in an attempt to rally support behind repealing Section 230.

If you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent this could significantly affect your favorite websites; including this one right here.

I highly encourage everyone to go to the government site to find out who your Congressman and Senators are and send them an email stating that the protections of 230 should be retained.
 

Desktop User2

kiwifarms.net
He also mentioned Section 230, they're might actually be a vote on it. Schumer didn't say shit about it that I heard tho.
A vote on what? There´s no proposed legislation, he only said that was increasing bipartisan concerns about it. The veto on the NDAA will be overridden.
 

Margo Martindale

Esteemed character actress and fugitive
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The house voted today to overturn the veto, by a vote of 322 to 87

Yeah nothings gonna change
 

Desktop User2

kiwifarms.net
Can he even do that without pushing it back to the house?
Don´t know that much about your legislature procedures but normally when a chamber alters a law from another, it has to go back. Either way, it would fit McConnel and the deficit hawks desires to just don´t vote the CASH act. The 600 dollars aid is already signed into law anyways.
 

Similar threads

Top