The EARN IT Act will change section 230 if passed - "How to Ban End-to-End Encryption Without Actually Banning It"

Here is an analysis of the EARN IT act by Standford Law

Besides other major changes, and hoops you'll have to go through, below is the part that stood out to me is. The whole article goes step by step pointing out problems, and the second half is just prose about how it will allow the government to exploit and threaten places.

  • Section 230 immunity for CSAM can be earned via 1 of 2 “safe harbors”:
    • 1: Compliance with “recommended” “best practices” for the prevention of online child exploitation conduct, TBD by a new 15-member commission
      • Analysis: Encryption, particularly end-to-end encryption, is likely to be targeted as being contrary to “best practices” for preventing CSAM, because if a provider cannot “see” the contents of files on its service due to encryption, it is harder to detect CSAM files.
      • The commission would include at least 4 law enforcement reps, 4 tech industry reps, 2 reps of child safety organizations, and 2 computer scientists/software engineering experts
        • Analysis: No representative is required to speak for users or civil society.
      • The commission “shall consider” users’ interests in privacy, data security, and product quality
        • Analysis: This is very weak language; it means the commission can “consider” these interests for a few seconds, chuckle to themselves, and then move on.
      • The commission recommends best practices to the Attorney General, who has the power to unilaterally change them before they’re finalized, as long as he writes up some reason for the changes.
        • Analysis: This means the AG could single-handedly rewrite the “best practices” to state that any provider that offers end-to-end encryption is categorically excluded from taking advantage of this safe-harbor option. Or he could simply refuse to certify a set of best practices that aren’t sufficiently condemnatory of encryption. If the AG doesn’t finalize a set of best practices, then this entire safe-harbor option just vanishes.
      • A “best practice” requires the approval of only 10 of the 15 commission members in order to be recommended on to the AG.
        • Analysis: This means that the commission could totally ignore both of the computer scientists, or both of the child safety org reps, or all 4 tech industry reps, so long as it can hit the 10-person quorum.
      • An officer of the provider must certify compliance with the best practices; “knowing” false statements are a federal felony, carrying a fine and a 2-year prison term.
        • Analysis: The language of the certification requirement doesn’t sound optional; it sounds like officers are compelled to certify, whether it’s true or not.
    • 2: Implementing other “reasonable measures” instead of the best practices
      • Unlike certifying compliance with the prescribed best practices, which guarantees Section 230 immunity, taking the “reasonable measures” option is not a guaranteed way of “earning” immunity.
      • Analysis: It’s not exactly a real “safe harbor” if the provider still has to litigate the 230 immunity question. Providers that can’t/won’t/don’t certify adherence to the “best practices” will have to take their chances on whether their chosen measures will be deemed “reasonable” by a court.
      • Analysis: Would a court find end-to-end encryption to be “reasonable,” when the goal is not data security, but instead, combating CSAM? Providers would struggle to reconcile their duty to provide “reasonable” data security, as imposed by the FTC and dozens of state data-security laws, with a conflicting duty not to encrypt information because it’s “unreasonable” under the EARN IT Act.

Liber Pater

Going Hard With The Hard "r's"
It's worth pointing out the names of the two Senators responsible for the bill:
Lindsay Graham
Richard Blumenthal

Interesting coincidence that two of Washington's most pro-Israel AIPAC favorites (especially Sen. Graham) were both involved in drafting this bill.
Interesting overlaps when you look at the foreign policy/Israel debates and privacy debates.
Further case in point: Rand Paul.

Having Blumenthal's name attached to it is an auto-kill for me.

Graham isn't much better; although he's taken the dick out of his mouth on some of his committee roles in the last few years, when it comes to legislation he's still as worthless as ever, especially on matters like this. Anybody whose stated position is "you have nothing to worry about as long as you have nothing to hide" absolutely is not equipped for even an entry level conversation on why the government should not be allowed to sidestep the 5th Amendment by antagonizing businesses instead of individuals.

Stop trying to read my emails you sickos.

The best way you can prevent posting of horrific content on the internet is if you make the internet a whiltelist where only approved companies and individuals can use it, and it requires biometric authorization and identification, only a narrow amount of content is allowed, and that real time monitoring is implemented to prevent and ban anybody who falls out of line.

But that would just send everybody else to sidechannels, in person swap meets, etc. Not to mention that is antithetical to innocent people's free exchange of ideas and information, which tends to allow society to grow and prosper, until authoritarians get their feelings hurt and start cracking down like they are currently doing, creating a lot of dysfunction.

The other way, the traditional way, is to not spy on everybody and treat everybody like criminals, and when somebody does something wrong, hold them accountable, and with the internet, use its open nature to create a profile on them and catch them.
  • Agree
Reactions: ??? and Splendid


Bloomberg 2024
Once this bill passes - and reddit and 4chan are burned to the ground - only KiwiFarms will remain as the true arbiter of discussion on the internet. Null is playing 4-d chess.

Future generations trawling through the wreckage of the internet, will only be able to interpret this era from the primary sources of psychotics, pedophiles and obese trannies.
Last edited:


Just another kill-encryption bill, this time disguised as a think-of-the-children! bill.
They all are. Every single fucking bill ever written with the intent of fucking you was presented as if it would stop children from getting fucked. It never does. The government doesn't give a fuck about kids. They would pimp children out if it earned them a nickel. Not a single fucking person in government hasn't indirectly murdered children by their actions.

If you ever see the word "Children" in a bill's long name you know for a fucking fact it's a big floppy cock aiming for your asshole


International man (?) of mystery
Well I assume it's gonna happen, so how can I profit from this bill?


Sent out emails and called my reps, as if it makes any difference. Hoping this shit doesn't go through.
I sent a message to my senator. Politicians are gross. We need people in government who understand and value the internet.
atleast you guys are doing what's in our power (lel) to do about this. You have my respect. :semperfidelis:Imma do the same as well, because not even trying means you have no right to complain. Complacency is what's ruined this great country to begin with.