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

    • is our Telegram for downtime and announcements.
    • The .is domain is disabled due to issues with the CDN and having multiple domains.
Not open for further replies.

Chaos Theorist

It would be spiteful To put jellyfish in a trifle
Jul 6, 2017
Lets see if its just another nuclear level bluff for Trump to get something else than Section 230 or if FAANG actively interfere on behalf of it


I’ve got time to waste, but nothing much to say...
May 9, 2018

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Forum Staff
⚡ Thunderdomer ⚡
True & Honest Fan
Jan 18, 2017
While its not hyperbolic, I think you're overstating the likelihood of it getting in:

However, those voices of support appear to be in the minority, with Republicans in Senate leadership noting that the NDAA must be passed.

"I don't think the defense bill is the place to litigate that," Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said. "There will be enormous support for getting the defense authorization bill passed and hopefully signed into law."

His calls appeared to fall on mostly deaf ears this week in Congress, however, as several Republicans said they'd already reached a deal with Democrats on language for the NDAA and that a provision regarding Section 230 did not belong in the defense bill.

"230 has nothing to do with the military," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "I agree with his sentiments ... but you can't do it in this bill. That's not a part of the bill."

"I would hope that he would not actually follow through with that because the NDAA is critical," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said regarding Trump's veto threat over Section 230.

Congressional negotiators began signing a compromise bill between the House and Senate versions, known as a conference report, Wednesday evening without any language on Section 230, a House aide confirmed to The Hill.

While he's being a retarded, reactionary faggot as per usual, there's simply not enough time for it to get done. That's a gigantic ask of a traditionally non-partisan bill. Not to mention, when his legal challenges fail, there's not going to be anything he can do and he has nothing to leverage Congress with. I mean, we're assuming the GOP cucks and basically just writes in "230 is gone lolz". The government just isn't capable of drafting that sort of legislation within a month, let alone as a rider on a non-partisan bill. These are the last death throws of a faggot that lost.

And while Biden wants to repeal 230 as well, he won't have a big enough mandate and it'll take a backseat.

May 20, 2020
Happy birthday. Afaik Trump is the same one who said he was going to build a wall so maybe wait and see? ask your lawyers about making someone in a 3rd country the director/admin of the site and keeping a couple of blank signed letters in which you can write that he resigned on a certain date or appointed someone else.

Anyway, there are many ways of getting around these things and avoiding personal responsibility.

And I know you're going to say no, the US can reach you anywhere etc. but if you are not linked with the site then what?
Not open for further replies.