InsolentGaylord
kiwifarms.net
So why not stop them from deciding what opinions are acceptable or not?
Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet -
- Thread starter Distant Stare
- Start date
So why not stop them from deciding what opinions are acceptable or not?
Absolutely, why risk trouble for anything? Just for the sake of it? Especially when US citizens pay taxes for their worldwide income even when they live abroad.
But I see people mixing things here:
to be a "fugitive of the only world superpower" people must either do something that falls under US jurisdiction or do something that really, really annoys the US and there's a drone strike or something in some really bad place. I don't think copyright problems or defamation would be like terrorism and there would be a drone strike or an abduction mission.
There is no "haven from the United States" in the above sense, but if - say - a French company owned by a Norwegian company publishes in Cambodia something nasty about an American or something whose copyright owner lives in the US, why would US laws apply? If somebody thinks US laws apply then conversely, every foreign law applies to this website in the US.
So imho if you are an American (or even a foreigner) living in the US you can't really break American laws but if you live abroad then you can, what do you care? If you drink alcohol at 16 in say France or Germany they don't arrest you when you come back to the US. And also the DMCA is an American law - a Spanish company publishing something in a Portuguese server would not need to comply with foreign law - exactly how KF did not comply with foreign law some time ago because it didn't have to.
I understand this website is another matter but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act applies only to the US and is not linked to criminal matters. Section 230 is relates to immunity from civil liability, it's not immunity from criminal liability.
Here is 230.e.2:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 233 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute."
And yes I know about 230.e.3 and state law:
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Sitting here trying to figure out how this post got as many downvotes as it did. Sure it was a little rant but it was informative and true. The one good thing about all those down marks is that it helpfully identifies the retards.
The stock people still put on internet stickers never ceases to amaze me. Is this Reddit?Sitting here trying to figure out how this post got as many downvotes as it did. Sure it was a little rant but it was informative and true. The one good thing about all those down marks is that it helpfully identifies the retards.
"Haha, people showed their disagreement. Retards
)"That was your entire post. No substance. Just a fart in the wind. But glass houses now, I guess.
The only thing more retarded than stickers is posting about them.
Well then, why not defend your position? Explain how it isn’t grand master autism to use Twitter day in, day out like a 16 year old girl and finally when reigned in on with fact checking, THEN decide to not only rage about it but also use your privilege and power to attempt to try and spearhead legislation to punish Twitter.The stock people still put on internet stickers never ceases to amaze me. Is this Reddit?
"Haha, people showed their disagreement. Retards
That was your entire post. No substance. Just a fart in the wind. But glass houses now, I guess.
Fuck.
I can’t believe I’m defending twitter right now.
![:\](/styles/custom/emotes/svg/chris-confused.svg "Confused :\")
You know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "controlling what people think". Trump got mad that his tweet was smothered so he chimped out. That's it. Maybe if you didn't take Twitter so seriously you'd be better off.
How do you suggest that be done?
I love the idea that some law could be passed that would make Twitter, overnight, into the opposite of what it has become: an unusable shithole populated by narcissistic assholes screaming their hot takes into the void for asspats and in-group cred.
Twitter is committing suicide. It will never become a more viable platform over time, only less. We don't need laws regulating platforms like these. Already nobody wants to use them but NPR-listening, post-wall harpies and flannel-wearing, patchy-bearded soy golems. It will be as irrelevant as Facebook has become in less than a decade without government intervention.
Twitter is committing suicide. It will never become a more viable platform over time, only less. We don't need laws regulating platforms like these. Already nobody wants to use them but NPR-listening, post-wall harpies and flannel-wearing, patchy-bearded soy golems. It will be as irrelevant as Facebook has become in less than a decade without government intervention.
A single person can't do much but something you can do? Stay the fuck off Twitter. Don't support these platforms. At all. Treat them as a zoo or an insane asylum freakshow, and laugh at the inhabitants. But don't do it on their platform. Do it anywhere but their platform. Block their ads, archive their content, make anyone there a laughingstock. It's not much, but the Farms does more to fuck these shitty platforms over than anyone could possibly do by participating in them directly, which does nothing but legitimize their existence.
The problem is many of these platforms, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, aren't bound by normal economic factors. They could be hemorrhaging money and they wouldn't care because the price of shaping public opinion is worth it. You can convince people to go out an vote against their own interests and be happy about it.
They're not dependent on money but they are dependent on people using their platform. Ask digg what happened when they forgot that.
Was the Supreme Court liberal or conservative back then for that decision to be made. And it has fucked everyone though and made discourse even worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read about gab being blacklisted by payment processors. Are payment processors easy to get started or is the industry like a cabal that locks out new competitors.
It was 5-4 on strictly party lines with the Republican appointees in the majority.
Every platform today that tries to compete is denied investors by Silicon Valley, smeared in the media, and a helpful amount of super nazis and pedos show up just to make it clear. If a "competitor" comes, it's because the same people are funding it, promoting it, paying celebrities to use it.
You seriously think Shatner and James Woods are paid to shitpost on Twitter or could be paid enough? They're there because the big audience is there. No social media platform can force anyone to use it other than the huge ones. And even they don't exist without that audience.
You think everyone is on Twitter for Shatner and James Woods? You know what I mean.
That doesn't contradict what I said
jje100010001
kiwifarms.net
With Twitter again censoring Trump's tweets regarding BHAZ, and this time suspending @CarpeDonktum, they are 100% going all in on the hopes that Trump is out in November.
Conservative accounts should start considering alternates, I expect Jack and co. to tighten the vise once the election starts.
I personally don't doubt that there'd be a non-zero chance that they 'accidentally' suspend Trump very close to the election.
Conservative accounts should start considering alternates, I expect Jack and co. to tighten the vise once the election starts.
I personally don't doubt that there'd be a non-zero chance that they 'accidentally' suspend Trump very close to the election.
schizoid PD
kiwifarms.net
They just outright deleted Trumps tweet.
Similar threads
The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring
- Sticky
General Discussion Thread
