Twitter Hides POTUS Tweet -

Trig.Point

I wouldn't start from here.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
As soon at that tweet got edited there will have been people whispering in trumps ear that Section 230 is the way to properly fuck with Jack. Yeah Trump is doing it for particularly retarded reasons but repeal of 230 has a lot of support.

At the moment no one on the left is openly supporting it because it's Trump, but do a google search for articles/tweet from before a couple of months ago.

Here's Biden saying he wants 230 gone.

Here's a NYT article by of all people fucking Sacha Baron Cohen.

Here's Beto O' Rourke back when he was relevant.

What do groups like the American Trial Lawyers think about 230? a group that are one of the democratic party's largest financial backers... What about the ADL and SPLC, who have a shit ton of lawyers that will be circling like vultures.

You won't hear any of this because nobody on the left wants to support trump... give it time though.
 

Skin and Bones

kiwifarms.net
Trump should back down on this fast and apologize. Threatening to remove important freedoms just because some people on the internet pissed you off is an awful idea. You shouldn't say it without intention to follow it up, as you're treating it like taking a kid's privileges after they act up.
 

DanteAlighieri

I hate commies
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Keep on defending Trump by any means necessary. You're doing this country a fine service.

You're no better than the SJWs with your echo chamber and scorched earth hypocrisy.
Who are you talking to? Most people are going "yeah this is bad but if it's anything like every other time it's bluster and nothing will happen".
 

(not) y2k compliant

kiwifarms.net
It's not that it's conceptually hard...

Most people don't "feel like it". Like, ok?
Thats what kills me though, people are effectivly using it's protections by posting here of all places, yet they can't conceptually grasp WHY it's benifiting them to have 230 around.
The problem with about 50% of the posts in this thread is that of a Godwin's law problem. Trump was mentioned, so people can't fucking look at the issue for what it is and they just distill the whole thing about him or the fact that Null mentioned him. Many of the posters in this thread have Trump living in their head rent fucking free they they can't actually take the step beyond and rationalize what 230 actually means for them.
 

Null

Cassandra on the Online
kiwifarms.net
Null, you know people are not actually going to read it. Even when shit is summarized in to -one sentence- it's still to conceptually hard to apply to themselves and others apparently.
The law is incredibly simple.

If you run a network or a website, and someone uses it to do something bad, you are not liable for it (with exception). Websites that editorialize (newspapers) are still liable. This is why Hulk Hogan can sue Buzzfeed, but Vordrak can't sue the Kiwi Farms.

What Trump is threatening to do to hurt Twitter is repeal this law, so if someone uses Twitter to do something bad, Twitter is liable for it. He is trying to 'clarify' the law so that deleting tweets and banning accounts is editorialization. Repealing the law in its entirety makes everyone personally, civilly liable for anything published on their platform.

Notice how what he's threatening to do doesn't actually solve the problem. It just makes these platforms so liable for what they publish that the only solution is to censor even more. Any defamation complaint would mean tweets and videos would have to go down. If someone posts something here and I get a complaint it's defamatory, I have to delete it or accept liability.

Currently, the process is: Person goes to court, gets court order to remove content, content is removed. The impetus is on the person to go to court.

Contrast that with the DMCA. Section 230 explicitly does not cover IP. So when I get a DMCA complaint, and I tell them to fuck off, I actually am personally accepting responsibility for that content. Every time I do this I evaluate the use of the work and decide if it's fair or not. This is me sticking my neck out on behalf of users.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.


I can't do that for statements. Every time someone claims a post is defamation, I have to evaluate the facts and determine if I trust those claims so much that I believe I can personally represent it in court on behalf of the person making the post.

To anyone who would say "you're in Serbia, why do you care?" my answer is: I am physically in Serbia, but my possessions are not. Verisign, the company that leases all .NET domains, is American. My bank accounts are American (and thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, unregulated banks like Swiss banks do not allow Americans to have accounts with them). My hardware is in the US. My datacenter is in the US. My LLCs are American. A civil judgement against me means they can take all of that, including the domain, Few other countries have the strong and broad protections for both speech and services as the US does currently.

Repealing Section 230 does not just spite Twitter. It emboldens Twitter to censor as hard as possible and jeopardizes any small forum without financial resources. I cannot become an outlaw for the forum. I cannot throw away my American citizenship for the forum. I've already done enough, and with the way Trump supporters are cheering this on, I don't even want to even bother.
 
Last edited:

Coh

Don’t you dare diss my waifu
kiwifarms.net
Are you blonde per chance? Or under the age of 20?
No and no.

It will, and if you're too dense to read the law to understand how, you'll get what you fucking deserve.
I don't make money off of the Internet nor do I use it as my primary vehicle of social interactions. This basically only affects people that host sites, and I don't intend to do that. So yeah, it doesn't fucking affect me. Unless the Orange Nigger actually does even more anti-2A shit than the bumpstock fuckery or otherwise directly impede upon my rights, I actually don't care. Even if I am using the law implicitly by posting here, I can still express my 1A rights in the real world really.
 

The Last Stand

When you see all the bullshit unfold...
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I've already done enough, and with the way Trump supporters are cheering this own, I don't even want to do more.
As with net neutrality, this could affect them as well. But because Trump is doing it, it's okay.

I knew Trump was doing this for his own sake to protect his fragile ego. While they eat it up and encourage censorship because it's against him.
 

the autist of dojima

Six scoops
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Someone who understands Trump please explain the logic behind this. I understand the argument that social media companies aren’t compliant with 230, but how will completely repealing this help with the censorship problem? It seems like removing this protection would encourage censorship on a scale we’ve never seen before.

Is there any logic to be found or is this just him doing anything possible to hurt the company who censored him personally?
Tl;dr: If you spergs dont calm down in putting down the knee on your necks
Simple as that, unless soy valley decide to double down nothing much will came out of this
 

Return of the Freaker

【FOREVER FORNEVER】
kiwifarms.net
Who are you talking to? Most people are going "yeah this is bad but if it's anything like every other time it's bluster and nothing will happen".
Shhh, you can't be so direct. They're probably still waiting for the nukes to fly from when we bombed the Syrian airfield and made Sulemani a shishkebab
 

Tim Buckley

Suffering
kiwifarms.net
I don't make money off of the Internet nor do I use it as my primary vehicle of social interactions. This basically only affects people that host sites, and I don't intend to do that. So yeah, it doesn't fucking affect me. Unless the Orange Nigger actually does even more anti-2A shit than the bumpstock fuckery or otherwise directly impede upon my rights, I actually don't care.
You would miss the internet as it was before it turned into a neurotic kindergarden, and that's assuming you don't even care or have any ties with it in the first place.
 

Terror Rism

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
trump owns the libs by trying to make it technically impossible for any non-megacorp approved opinions to exist on any other internet platform

at least shooting yourself in the foot is quick, this is like holding a chainsaw to your foot while trying to remain smug looking through the noise and blood splatter
 

Ivan Shatov

Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
kiwifarms.net
Someone who understands Trump please explain the logic behind this. I understand the argument that social media companies aren’t compliant with 230, but how will completely repealing this help with the censorship problem? It seems like removing this protection would encourage censorship on a scale we’ve never seen before.

Is there any logic to be found or is this just him doing anything possible to hurt the company who censored him personally?
He's negotiating in a very brute manner.

Google / Facebook / Twitter have demonstrated ability to control public opinion. It's a very serious threat and something Americans have no interest in.

This tweet says he's going to take them out of business. He's a businessman, he's not going to nuke $2.2 T of the US GDP. But he certainly can get their attention.

The issue of censorship is now at the top of Big Tech's stack. We're going to see how they respond, they're either going to back down or go for broke.

There's nothing petty about that. It's about risk.
 
Tags
None