Apparently Trump Refuses To Allow The Government To Do Anything At All Until The Open Internet Is Destroyed
from the we're-doing-what-now? dept
Well, the government is closing out the year with quite a mess. As threatened, President Trump today vetoed the massive National Defense Authorization Act, living up to his promise to veto it if it didn't include the complete revocation of Section 230 of the Communications Act, which has nothing to do with funding our military. Trump, for no reason at all, says that repealing Section 230 is important for "national security", which makes no sense at all (nor does he provide any rationale for this statement). Senate Armed Service chair and Trump buddy Senator Jim Inhofe had already threatened to override the veto should Trump go this route -- and has (correctly!) said that 230 has nothing at all to do with the NDAA. Inhofe has already responded to Trump's veto by asking Congress to "join me in making sure our troops have the resources and equipment they need to defend this nation." In other words, he's asking Congress to override the veto.
As for 230, Inhofe (ridiculously) claims that he does support a repeal of the law, but it should be in a separate legislative vehicle, and not the NDAA:
We can and should use another legislative vehicle to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – a priority @realDonaldTrump and I share.
— Sen. Jim Inhofe (@JimInhofe) December 23, 2020
Meanwhile, the other big bills -- the omnibus government funding bill and the COVID relief bill, which are now tied together at the hip -- have also somehow been dragged into the Section 230 mess. Pretty much everyone assumed that after Congress voted overwhelmingly for both bills on Monday (as stupid as they were), Trump would sign them. After all, the White House was a part of the negotiations with Congressional leadership to come to the "compromise" that made it through.
But, last night, Trump threw a wrench in the works by claiming he wouldn't sign either unless the amount going to qualified individuals was $2,000 rather than $600. This seriously messed with his Republican colleagues who had pushed repeatedly to keep that number as low as possible. But the Democrats rightly seized on Trump's demands for $2,000 to agree with him and say they'll offer a revised bill with that more generous number.
Somehow, Section 230 had remained outside of the discussion over the funding bill and the stimulus bill, but Senator (who else?) Lindsey Graham has brought the two together by saying that he'll support the $2,000 part of the stimulus bill... if it also revokes 230. He's been tweeting more and more about this all day, and is now claiming that a refusal to revoke Section 230 means that Congress "cares more about big tech than working Americans."
That is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Section 230 protects working Americans more than it protects "big tech." It protects us posting on social media. It protects us forwarding emails. It protects us when we retweet nonsense. It makes the open internet possible, and enables the next generation of competitors to "big tech" to exist. Lindsey Graham's weird grandstanding about this is nonsense. Taking away 230 wouldn't rein in big tech, it would lock in big tech. They have large legal teams and can handle the disruption. This is why Facebook already supports major 230 reform. Zuckerberg knows that it would harm upstart competitors way more than Facebook.
There can be legitimate debates about Section 230 and how the open internet should work. The fact that it's suddenly being held hostage as part of the negotiations on three massive -- and totally unrelated to the internet -- bills is simply a case study in how broken Congress is, and how cynical politicians like Lindsey Graham have become.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, covid, donald trump, government funding, jim inhofe, lindsey graham, ndaa, omnibus, section 230, stimulus
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
I like section 230 because it provides a "get out of this lawsuit quickly" card for every website owner that allows posting of comments, so that people from different countries and political orientation can discuss all kind of issues. It also protects me when I as a moderator try to keep the discussion civil.
I know that different people have different opinions on what they find objectionable. That's why there is be a variety of forums on the web.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What did you expect??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's just sabotaging anything he can break at this point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh I don't imagine anyone is surprised that Trump and Graham are willing to hold the country hostage like this, but it still worth pointing out what despicable people they are by highlighting that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wonder if Graham is aware about the Case act??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I don't care if they die if I don't get my way!'
Well, nice of Trump and Graham to remind people(assuming they forgot in the previous five seconds since the last reminder) how eager they are to hold the country and military hostage in order to get their way.
Refuse to kill a completely unrelated law? Screw the military's funding,screw the government's funding, screw COVID relief, and screw those that are in dire need of financial assistance due to COVID.
Still, gotta love Graham's hypocritical projecting here, the same person holding relief money hostage unless he gets his way is trying to claim that the other side doesn't care about the public, with the cherry on top that he's doing everything he can to help 'Big Tech' by attacking 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I don't care if they die if I don't get my way!'
Some brave politician should sneak in a line that going forward all legislation will be written as "one bill, one item".
Think of the irony if it passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I don't care if they die if I don't get my way!'
u mad bro?
Cool story!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is getting ridiculous. Political points shouldn’t be tied to making sure that the government runs. It was ridiculous when it was about the ACA, and it’s ridiculous now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our military doesn't need any more funding
PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…which is exactly why big corporations and people like Donald Trump want to get rid of 230: For one reason or another, they don’t like the Internet being open to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAAAH!!!
WE WANT IMMUNITY ON CENSORSHIP AND THWART 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. WAAAHHHH!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter booting some jackass from the site doesn’t infringe on anyone’s First Amendment rights. Nobody has the right to either use the private property of others as a soapbox, make people listen to their speech, or force someone to give the speaker a captive audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
Wrong, we want an Internet where various groups with different aims standards an politics can exists. That is not achieved by either allowing people like you to say whatever you want on whatever web site you want, or having web sites decide not to allow any user comments whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
I like section 230 because it provides a "get out of this lawsuit quickly" card for every website owner that allows posting of comments, so that people from different countries and political orientation can discuss all kind of issues. It also protects me when I as a moderator try to keep the discussion civil.
I know that different people have different opinions on what they find objectionable. That's why there is be a variety of forums on the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
It’s not censorship (just go somewhere else), and a private corporation cannot infringe on anyone’s 1st Amendment rights by definition (only the government can do that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
Well, but it shouldn't. Damn it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
It doesn't, by definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
Capslock key broken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WAAAH!!!
Looks more like a PEBKAC error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't forget Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean when it comes to Trump's motivation I'd say it's pretty clear, he really hates free speech when it's used against him and the idea that people can call him out on his lies and bullshit is simply unacceptable, and he thinks that removing 230 will make it so sites will shutter comments or be much more quick to remove them, both of which are likely true, he just hasn't realized that that will include his comments and those from his cult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt he would care about that in the long run. He has a bigger microphone, in that he can dupe the mainstream media outlets into amplifying his words. (Right-wing media does that anyway.) Losing his Twitter account would be a big blow, but not nearly as big a blow as losing the ability to somehow get his speech on MSNBC or Fox News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In theory there’s an open internet that needs protecting. In practice a couple of corporations own everything and enable barely literate morons to broadcast all kinds of moronic messages - all in order to create controversy so that people can keep their eyes glued to the platform... so that the surveillance may go on forever.
There’s little of value left to be protected by section 230. I’d just as soon stop pretending that FB and google are different from traditional media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Destroy that bridge!' '... That you're standing on?' 'Yes!'
... said the person posting anonymously, on an open platform enabled by 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Destroy that bridge!' '... That you're standing on?' 'Yes!'
one that isn't owned by FB or google either.
Incidentally: I don't have an FB account, and thus never use it.
I also don't use google for search which means I rarely interact with either corporation, and yet some how manage to spent tons of time online. (In case anyone actually believe the 'oh FB and google make up all of the internet' BS)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, what about literate, intelligent, thoughtful people? I understand that in this political climate it's easy to write off large swaths of the population as having nothing meaningful to bring to the conversation. But as polarized as we are, having only traditional media could mean sealing people into impenetrable bubbles, where they lack opportunities to find common ground, and be reminded of our shared humanity.
Maybe your experiences have been miserable, but mine haven't. Just because some, or many people don't utilize a platform in a preferred way doesn't mean everyone deserves to lose it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
... but enough about yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen T. Stone
Trump and company whant's 230 remove so they can SUE people for money and the big corps if anyone says something they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stephen T. Stone
As with so many of these things, it's not about money, it's about power. Trump wants the ability to lie to his cult without fact checking or other indications that he's lying. He also wants to prevent the ability for them to tell those people to get off their property (while hopefully preventing non-supporters from countering him). He wants a large audience, but one where he's shielded from dissenting voices. There might well be a grift involved following that, but really it's about Trump's manbaby ego not liking the fact that others can tell him he's wrong.
The only silver lining of all this is that if he were ever to get what he wanted, the meltdown he would have as he realises that it doesn't do any of this would be epic. In fact, he would have to be the first person kicked off Twitter entirely, since pretty much everything he says would be legally actionable against them without section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
You misspelled "corrupt".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
Similar thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
Cynical is not the same thing as corrupt, not even close.
Broken is not necessarily corrupt.
Not similar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAAAAH!!!
WE WANT OUR MILITARY TO HAVE MORE FUNDING SO WE CAN DESTROY THE ECONOMY WHILE WE FIGHT ENDLESS WARS MURDERING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHERE WE DON'T BELONG SO OUR TROOPS CAN STEP ON IEDS. WAAAHH!! WE WANNA BE LIKE CHINA AND CENSOR EVERYONE FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT CORRUPT POLITICIANS/PEOPLE WITH FALSE FACT CHECKERS AND HAVE IMMUNITY FROM CENSORSHIP OF 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. WAAAAH!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well someone clearly needs a nap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or a diaper change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LETS PRETEND WE'RE COOL AND MATURE BY MAKING SNARKY COMMENTS BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT MILITARY SPENDING FOR ENDLESS WARS. WAAAH!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child, you don’t even know how I feel about the U.S. military or the spending on said military. (Spoilers: I’m not a big fan of either.) I can dislike both the excessive funding of the military and the push to “reform”/repeal Section 230; the two positions are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, it's no wonder brainy can't understand that since he is capable of holding two mutually exclusive positions at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WAAH LETS MAKE SNARKY COMMENTS LIKE WE'RE COOL BECAUSE WE WANT IMMUNITY TO CENSOR WISTLEBLOWERS SO WE CAN MANIPULATE THE ECONOMY AND ELECTIONS WITH FALSE FACT CHECKERS SO PEOPLE THINK WHAT WE WANT THEM TO THINK. WAAH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you wander in here from Stormfront, 8kun, or wherever the hell the QAnon whackjobs congregate these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WTF?
Seriously, can someone call the wambulance on this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's cute that you think Trump is making his move based on some sort of global altruism and not because he feels the need to inflate his own ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 230 is what allows big tech to engage in the selective enforcement of supposed "rules" which ultimately promotes censorship. It is the little-guy that is hurt by section 230, not the corporations. The proof is to simply look to whom big tech and the globalist corporations donated. It wasn't Trump.
I think the message from Trump is clear: the swampy congress can override his veto, both for the Porkulus spending bill, and for the defense bill. But then they become responsible for it, and not him. He won't be left holding the bag without some compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It also lets sites run by non-corporate owners — like, say, the overwhelming majority of Mastodon instances — enforce rules such as “take your racist bullshit somewhere else”.
The law shouldn’t force any website to host speech that the owner(s) of said site don’t want to host — whether it’s White supremacist propaganda, essays on defunding the police, or a manifesto about The Rise of Skywalker being the best film in the Star Wars franchise. That you seem to believe otherwise is…telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Least Koby's better than the one guy below.
|
\/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The one who keeps spamming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what will the little guy do when most of their favourites sites close their comments sections because they cannot afford the risk of law suites? How do people hold conversation on the Internet when they cannot allow user comments on their blogs because of the risks of either being sued, or the comments being rendered useless the trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shrinkwrap agreement & forced binding arbitration. Just slap that shit on anything and the US court system can't say jack.
Sure it's a pain for companies to deal with the constant fillings in the wrong court system, but they win in the end regardless, and the idiots reimburse them for their stupidity. Eventually the idiots get the hint, companies are untouchable in the US, and stop after the initial wave. (Although, you do still get the occasional idiot that thinks they've found the perfect loophole, and fails after a few rounds like all the others.) This will be no different.
Of course, even if they could get the case into a government run court, it would also help if they had a case to begin with. 230 doesn't allow companies to moderate their platforms, that's the First Amendment. Which companies qualify for protections under. If anything a 230 repeal would allow more frivolous lawsuits with claims like "insert social media company here supports terrorism!!!" or "My identity was stolen from my workplace records, so Microsoft / Google / Apple / etc. owes me money for providing any service what so ever to the thief."
More frivolous lawsuits from pointless legislation that politicians can claim does something..... What do you mean it isn't US law yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rarely in the US, which usually follows both sides pay their own costs. That is why legal trolls are so common in the US, if they can find a reason to take someone to court, they can settle out of court , with their targets paying less that they would spend to win the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also fixed with Shrinkwrap arbitration: "The User, as defined in Section A, agrees to pay all costs of arbitration, including but not limited to The Provider's, as defined in Section A, expenditures related to the arbitration."
IMNAL, but something similar is permitted in a US enforced contract. (The right to contract trumps all others in the US.) It was actually the entire reason arbitration became so widespread. To get rid of annoying class actions by forcing everyone into individual suits where they stand to win very little, then stack the deck in the bank's favor. The amount an individual arbitration suit can typically win for an individual is less than the cost of arbitration, but doing it that way means a bank, or other company, can write off the cost of their bad behavior & arbitration as a business expense. So no, the idiots do reimburse the companies for their stupidity. As long as the company is smart enough to stack the deck correctly before hand to make them do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shrink wrap agreements have not kept Facebook for instance out of court. Also, actually getting payment may involve a visit to the courts to get the agreement enforced. None of that is much help for a blog or YouTube channel run by an individual as a hobby,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Shrink wrap agreements have not kept Facebook for instance out of court."
It's also good not to refer to them as "shrinkwrap" agreements for honesty as well. The reason why shrinkwrap agreements are problematic is that you have to open the shrinkwrap to read the agreement, and you have no recourse if you disagree with the agreement presented. This is not relevant to something like Facebook, since you have every opportunity to read the agreement before signing up. You can also cancel your account if you disagree with any changes to the agreement with no penalty, unlike the shrinkwrap where you're typically out of your purchase costs if you disagree with the terms presented.
The bottom line - don't like Facebook's terms of service? Don't use their service. There are plenty of other options for almost everything they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe the correct term is “clickwrap”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's "clickwrap" if you have to agree to the licence when you install it, but the term "shrinkwrap" refers to old boxed software where you were deemed to have agreed to the licence simply by unwrapping the box (the licence you agree to being stored inside).
Either way, it's not applicable to online services, which give you the option to read the licence before you finish signing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAAAH!!!
WE WANNA TALK TRASH ABOUT TRUMP SO LETS COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO TRASH HIM OVER. WAAAAHH!!!
OH I KNOW! LETS PRETEND MILITARY FUNDING IS WHAT WE NEED RIGHT NOW IN A PANDEMIC AND VILIFY TRUMP! WAAAHHH!!
LETS PRETEND CENSORSHIP IMMUNITY FROM BIG TECH IS A GOOD THING SO WE CAN BE LIKE CHINA AND MANIPULATE THE ECONOMY AND IN ELECTIONS. WAAAH!!
WE WANT MORE MILITARY DYING AND MILITARY SPENDING SO WE CANT PUT THE MONEY INTO THE ALREADY FALTERING ECONOMY. WAAAH!!
LETS POINT THE FINGER AT TRUMP THAT COVID IS HIS FAULT JUST SO WE CAN VILIFY HIM. WAAAH!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAAAH!!!
WELL,
Being in 3-4 wars, that Arnt even being reported on? OK, you are correct, but what happens to those Men when they come home, over 1 million people. NO JOBS. And even back to Bush jr.(repub) they were trying to get the PENTAGON to supply records of all expenditures, did trump ask? NOPE.
Censorship? IS NOT part of the Big corps. 99% of forums are all created by smaller groups. NOT the BIG corps, like Amazon or Google. Then we get to BASIC censorship. That if you EXPLAIN things, DONT belittle others, and STAY ON THE SUBJECT. I dont think you are being censored. running around blaming Jews for everything, isnt paying attention to the person NEXT to you. The one that OWN 2/3 of the business in your town. Ever been to a city/county Meetings? THATS where you can make changes.
Military dying. Um ya. BECAUSE we stick our FINGERS IN where they are NOT NEEDED. Love those oil corps, dont you? That was started WHEN?? Bush jr.?
trump and Covid. OK I will. HE SHOULD HAVE LET THE DOCTORS TELL US WHAT TO DO. NOT TRY TO TELL US WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT 5 YEARS OF VIROLOGY AND EDUCATION.
If your local Doctor told you to take a medicine or die, and Mr. trump told you to forget it... WHO THE F' would you listen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAAAH!!!
I mean, he kinda does that for us.
I’m not exactly for more military spending, but 1) you’re saying the entire military—including all purely defensive programs—should shut down, 2) like it or not, military-spending bills are considered must-pass bills in Congress and always have been, and 3) what we’re opposing is trying to link §230 to military spending, which makes no sense. The two things should pass or fail on their own.
§230 immunity over hosting and moderating third-party content is 1) not exclusive to Big Tech, 2) not “censorship immunity”, 3) is a good thing, and 4) is nothing like what happens in China.
See my second response, but more importantly, the military spending bill is separate from the bill that would stimulate the economy. Supporting one doesn’t mean or even imply being against the other. Again, they each rise or fall on their own, as they should.
No one says that COVID is his fault. What we claim is that Trump failed to do much of anything to effectively mitigate its spread so its impact on public health and the economy would be lessened. He took a bad situation and actively made it worse. Therefore, the extent of COVID’s impact on the US is his fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAAAH!!!
“We can be like China”
I would actually be open to giving trump to the Chinese as a gesture of goodwill since he’s leaving anyway to speed the process along lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'... Why would we want that?'
Regifting is an iffy practice at the best of times, but regifting something(or someone as it may be) like that would definitely not count as a gesture of goodwill, any more than sending a tanker of nuclear waste mixed with raw sewage would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAAAH!!!
"LETS POINT THE FINGER AT TRUMP THAT COVID IS HIS FAULT JUST SO WE CAN VILIFY HIM. WAAAH!!!"
COVID is not his fault. The deaths unnecessarily caused by his firing of the pandemic team, restricted access to states for vital supplies, his refusal to give federal aid while he thought it only affected blue states, his public attacks on science, his placing of money over lives, his constant lies about the spread and possible cures, etc, are however purely on him.
It will never cease to amaze me - 3,000 dead on 9/11? Let's destroy freedoms, invade 2 countries and slaughter their inhabitants (one of which had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever) and demonise entire religious and ethnic groups. 3,000 PER DAY as a direct result of the negative actions taken by this administration? Meh, that doesn't matter, stop meaning mean!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase an old saying: 3,000 deaths is a tragedy; 300,000 deaths is just a statistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love this President
Many on here thought that Trump would cave and sign the NDAA with no repeal of section 230. This President has huge balls. Section 230 MUST BE REPEALED. Why? Donald Trump is President and he is regardless looking out for the interest of the American people. Tech dirt is right about section 230
However Trump is my President and I will always be a die hard Trump supporter. Just my 2 cents Techdirt. The election has been stolen. That is not an opinion it is fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love this President
[Citations needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love this President
Even the ones that died due to COVID-19?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love this President
Judges that Trump appointed disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Including the three Trump-appointed judges serving on the highest court in the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah but you see that just show how amazingly cunning and smart the democratic party is, even Trump's own appointees are in on it.
I mean, it's either that or Trump and his cultists are lying and/or wrong, but since that can't be true the only other option is that the democratic party is vastly more intelligent and capable than Trump and his cult, able to hide all real evidence of a nationwide fraud in the most watched election of US history and even compromise multiple Trump appointed judges to get them in on the fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I refuse to believe without evidence that Democrats are minimally competent, let alone capable of controlling space and time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't disagree with you, I'm just saying that if Trump and his cult are going to claim that a massive conspiracy took place to successfully steal the most watched election in US history and yet are unable to present any real evidence of it they basically have to to concede that the democratic party is filled with nothing but people massively more intelligent and cunning than them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Do you believe the Trump administration doing nothing to prevent the pandemic from becoming what it is today, with millions infected and hundreds of thousands dead, represents “the best interests of the American people”?
How does it feel to live inside a cult of personality? (After all, you gave him fortune, you gave him fame, and you gave him power in your God’s name.)
Only to the people living inside the alternate reality that is the conservative/right-wing media bubble. But in the real world, where facts aren’t just feelings about what you think is true, nobody — the federal government, state and local governments, the Trump campaign “lawyers”, and even Donald Trump himself — has proven any such allegation. Nobody has come forward with any proof that any voting irregularities happened in such numbers that removing votes tainted by those irregularities would alter the results of the 2020 presidential election. Nobody has provided credible evidence of widescale voter fraud in even one state, let alone multiple states. And no court has yet given credence to those allegations by letting them go forward unchallenged on a factual basis.
(And speaking of things no one has done, nobody has yet explained how the presidential election was stolen, but the downballot elections — including the numerous House and Senate elections — were not.)
Donald Trump is a grifter. Do you think he wants to give you $2,000 for your own personal good? Fuck no! He wants you to get that money so you can donate it right back to him. And the Republican party is little better; they have become a party of conspiracy theories, of rejecting science, of promoting falsehoods and favoring the wealthy and everything else they say they stand against — all in the name of power, wealth, and ego. Republican politics is a politics of grifting, dominance, and destroying the government.
After all, the Democrats didn’t put an elderly game show host with no record of public service and a history of racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant speech on the ballot for a presidential election. The Republicans fell in line behind Donald Trump because he gave them exactly what they wanted (lots of federal judges through whom conservative ideology can become law). They didn’t care how badly Trump destroyed the country in the process; they’ve never cared. If anything, Republican voters seem all too ready to accept a dictator as their leader if it means “the libs” suffer even more than Republican voters.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Republicans in and out of public office gave Trump a lit match and turned their backs. Is it any surprise, then, than America is a goddamned dumpster fire where Republicans think $600 will be enough to keep the average American from falling into financial ruin?
And is it any more surprising that, as far as I can tell, you’re more than happy to dance in the fire if it means I get burned worse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You talk about Republicans the way the KKK talks about blacks. Total contempt, dehumanization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me fetch the world's smallest violin for you
That's okay, he's just 'saying it like it is' or perhaps that's just 'locker-room talk', I understand that Trump cultists love that sort of thing when their side does it so they should have no issue not being raging hypocritical losers when someone does it to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You talk about Republicans the way the KKK talks about blacks. Total contempt, dehumanization."
Turn around is fair play?
Takes one to know one?
Do as I say, not as I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems only fair, since Republicans treat Black Americans with total contempt. Why else would Republicans oppose the mere notion of “Black Lives Matter” or try so damn hard to make voting harder (and make voting mean less) in places with largely Black populations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why else would Republicans oppose the mere notion of “Black Lives Matter” or try so damn hard to make voting harder (and make voting mean less) in places with largely Black populations?"
There's a good argument that they are making voting harder in urban/lower income areas rather than specifically black areas (although those sadly do tend to coincide with each other). The BLM thing seems to be a deliberate corruption of the implied meaning of BLM (inserting "only" instead of the intended "also").
Either way, "Republican" is not an immutable, unchangeable part of someone's being the way that "black" is, and in fact has completely changed due to the Southern Strategy in many peoples' living memory...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love this President
The trick about those that are supposed to protect the citizens?
Is that there will ALWAYS be a person that dont like them.
But do you know Trump ran as independent? THEN as a democrat? FIRST?
And there is a Very good probability HE DIDNT WANT THE JOB. He was doing it to hide his money, to show $xxx,xxx,xxx was paid out when only 1/2 was.(they recently found it)
And the only reason the repubs were TRYING to follow him, was becasue of the repub leader. AND NOW they dont even want him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald Trump never wanted the job of being president. He wanted the position and the power associated with the presidency. His time in office proves as much; I mean, if he cared about the job instead of the position, far fewer Americans would have died from COVID-19 over the past year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As additional proof, I duckduckwent for how much time DT spent playing golf while "in office", and found a specialized website that tracks it.
Not counting travel time, he spent an average of ~1.8 hours a day, every single day, over the past four years, at a golf club. A grand total of ~2640 hours (~110 days) of golfing and golf-adjacent activities... and that's without including the travel time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love this President
Least you aren't spamming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for the fun of it.
IF'
They could give us a GOOD basic reason, Based on FACTS and the reading of 230. Not fabrication. Would we at least think about it?
All I see is a way to Kill off the Forums and chats of smaller companies and groups. By then we are directly at Google and amazon, and they dont really want to worry about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump’s veto
Don’t listen to me, I’m just an old doofus, but it sure seems like President-reject Trump plays the media lika a virtuoso. Why just yesterday he pardoned a whole bunch of criminals and toadies and fellow travelers, but today the soi-disant journalists are all over his latest outrageous acts, the vetoes, and completely ignoring his norm-breaking, anti-democratic attacks on the rule of law. If I didn’t know better I would say Congress should look into its impeachment powers, but the total fecklessness of the modern (post-modern?) Republican Party means nothing will happen. Until, of course, there’s a Democrat in the White House - then they will try to gaslight the populace and go after Biden for Trump’s lawlessness. Happens every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump’s veto
I'd say he's more like a savant. He has an innate, instinctive talent for distraction, but I don't think he puts any thought into it; he just does stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump's no Joker. He's more like that guy on Batman: The Animated Series who opened a Joker-themed casino to try to trick the Joker into destroying it so he could collect the insurance money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet...
People think he is.
Also, I hope they override the veto on the NDAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ONLY thing stopping Big Tech is fear of moving too quickly,
...and alarming The Public before ALL "social media" is effectively censored.
In which you play a tiny part in putting out disinformation on this topic, nearly every day.
BALONEY! State ONE case / sitch where I'M protected more than mere hosts are by the grant of immunity. That grant is worth TENS OF BILLIONS just in not having to hire people besides get insurance! Mere hosts barely have to worry about "moderation" -- but are happy to "moderate" when means enforce political orthodoxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONLY thing stopping Big Tech is fear of moving too quickly,
Business Leaders Who Reject Woke Culture To Be 'First People Lined Up Against The Wall And Shot In Revolution': Ex-Twitter CEO
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/business-leaders-who-reject-woke-culture-be-first-people-lin ed-against-wall-and-shot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONLY thing stopping Big Tech is fear of moving too quickly,
YOU ADMITTED IT.
This law is to protect those that Made/created the site.
The PROBLEM is how many will Sue a site for ANYTHING, that is posted?
There are 2 sides on this,
1, that doesnt want ANYTHING ERASED..(Stupid for all the Crap that will appear in 1 day)
2, Wants the Censoring, but ONLY their Censorship.
If a Regular Citizens posts a MEAN/BAD post on a site, WHO do you think they/Corps/rich/poor/Companies/trump WANT to sue?? For the WORDS of another person.
THEY want the richest person they can SUE. And if they can match the Site creator TO A BIG company, they will go THERE.
It would be easier to Just shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again BY YOUR OWN WORDS, Maz, all "users" are subject...
...to a mere host's "freedom of association":
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml
YOU STATE without qualification or limitation that The Public has NO actual protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again BY YOUR OWN WORDS, Maz, all "users" are
Your handily forgotten prior statement simply cannot be construed as offering ANY protection from a mere host's arbitrary control. So THIS IS BALONEY:
[Of course, you DO with typical sneakiness qualify it by the word "us", probably meaning specific small group of privileged elite that doesn't include The Public. -- If anyone new here and thinks that's harsh, you simply don't know corporatist Maz.]
Your false claim is shown by S230 did NOT protect the NYPost -- a large organization -- from informing in the election, now did it?
The Twitter censoring of Biden info:
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than- what-they-censor/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things.
“Us” means the general public.
The New York Post was not censored by Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is true. The public has no “actual protection” from being booted off privately owned property. That goes for meatspace and cyberspace: Twitter has as much right to boot someone who posts racial slurs as you have to boot someone out of your home for not saying racial slurs (or whatever you consider acceptable speech).
How do you not get the idea that, despite being owned by a corporation, Twitter servers are private property in the same way individual McDonald’s franchises are private property? How do you not understand that you have no legal, moral, or ethical entitlement to a spot on Twitter or an audience for your speech? You like to champion youself as smarter than every writer and commenter at Techdirt put together, Brainy, so how do you not understand that the owners of Twitter, McDonald’s, and any other corporate-owned private property — in addition to “actual person”–owned private property — have every legal right to kick you out for not playing by their rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again BY YOUR OWN WORDS, Maz, all "users" are subject...
WE DONT.
Even 230 says that.
YOU are responsible for your words. NOT TD.
I may be abit on the strange, weird, incoherent side most times, but Even I understand that.
Consider this. Facebook REQUIRES real names. And many times a PICTURE.
Ever wonder why?
Think about the harassment, in schools, that was happening. Think of the Groups that jump on, ADVERT everything they can, then LEAVE.(spam)
HOw about creating a FAKE account, which they DO FIGHT, just to do something STUPID, like Follow you Ex.girl friend/wife/mate/what ever.
How many sites Go that far to Help and protect the Online people?
How many Corps would LOVE to have an account and publish THEIR BS, and POLITICS(?) dont get me started. Iv watched TV for over 60 years, and watched both sides LIE about each other.
Have you ever seen a Socialist advert to run for president? I have. 2 times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dorsey points up "in good faith"!
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-ceos-facebook-twitter-google-set-be-grill ed-senate-hearing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dorsey points up "in good faith"!
But MAZ simply HATES the phrase "in good faith"! Not my imagination! So much that he blatantly DELETED the very characters and when caught tried to justify it:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/00025041506/us-newspapers-now-salivating-over-bringin g-google-snippet-tax-stateside.shtml#c530
Anyone with open mind, read the above and ask whether Maz might be LYING here -- as often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means, explain what “good faith” means and how, say, a 100-person-large Mastodon instance that bans speech promoting, say, the anti-queer practice of pyschological (and sometimes physical) torture called “conversion ‘therapy’ ” is not acting in “good faith”.
I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, he won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dorsey points up "in good faith"!
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dorsey points up "in good faith"!
The portion of §230 he was quoting is §230(c)(2), which doesn’t contain the words “good faith”. You’re thinking about §230(c)(1), which is about good faith efforts to remove objectionable content. §230(c)(2) is about providing users with tools to remove or exclude objectionable content, and it doesn’t specify good faith at all. That was actually specifically pointed out in a court opinion. §230(c)(1) is the only clause that is dependent upon good faith. Everything else in §230, including §230(c)(2), does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dorsey points up "in good faith"!
Spambot flagged for linking to malicious scam site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graham voted for §230
Interesting that Lindsey Graham is against Section 230 when he voted for the damn thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graham voted for §230
Things change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
Correct. For example, Lindsey Graham's public statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
Don't be surprised if Wyden changes cause of pressure too, though I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
I would be, because Wyden, um, wrote the bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
I know, but with everyone attacking it and pressure coming from that, I think you know where it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
Ron Wyden is the Chuck Norris of §230. Bills are afraid to come to floor votes unless he's in a committee meeting. Committees don't pressure him, he pressures committees.
When Ron Wyden asks a question, the answer gives itself up immediately and the deposer autocombusts at the microphone.
Ron Wyden is so powerful, even the Republicans in his state vote for him. ... out of appreciation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
So basically, Ron Wyden is the most interesting man in the world? Sure, I guess. That checks out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
"Ron Wyden is so powerful, even the Republicans in his state vote for him."
Wyden is from a state that implemented universal mail-in voting two decades ago. Gee, I wonder why he keeps getting reelected so easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Graham voted for §230
Just out of curiosity, are you saying that Vote-by-mail is rigging the election game, or should I have a less cynical or more benign interpretation? I just want clarification is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See your point.
That doesn't mean shit though if you accidentally sign a omnibus that has CASE and Felony Streaming on it, though considring the fact they had 2 hours to read it, I'll cut him some slack.
True, he's powerful, but sometimes they sneak stuff on him.
But i won't deny that he's powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graham voted for §230
You should see what he said about Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remove the crap and keep it about Americans
You liberals are too stupid to see all the crap that was in it. No one should of voted for this. Well send money over seas and funnel it back to them. That is what Trump sees. That is why he vetoed it. Wake up and see how corrupt the system is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrupt like, blocking covid relief because of an unrelated law?
I love how in order to defend him even Trump's own cultists ignore what he says. No, he clearly said that the veto was about 230, it had bugger all to do with anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: remove the crap and keep it about Americans
You’re confusing the NDAA (which Trump vetoed because it didn’t remove §230) and the omnibus COVID/spending bill (which Trump didn’t seem to understand was two separate bills passed as one). And for the record, we had those clauses in previous spending bills, too, which Trump did not veto. That happens every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Simple - The Long game
Simple - Trump knows when he's out, he's going to subject to massive social media "commentary". With section 230 neutralized (neutered?) he will be able to launch massive suits against the social media companies themselves for any criticism. They in turn, he hopes(!!) seriously censor any criticism of him. They will also pay him to go away with his frivolous lawsuits, as has happened before his presidential stint when libel chill was his common tactic.
Without changes to 230 he would have to go through the legal hassles of unmasking each commenter in turn, probably to find they have not enough assets to make his libel chill lawsuits break even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very Simple - The Long game
If that is his 'plan' then it's a shortsighted one, as without 230 to shield them from liability regarding content he might post, and especially with him attempting to sue the platforms the quick and easy solution is to boot his ass out the door right alongside anyone who might be saying mean things about him.
Once he's no longer president then it's no longer a matter of public concern what he posts, and therefore the hassle of dealing with him and his toxic cult might finally be enough motivation for social media platforms to apply the rules to him for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Very Simple - The Long game
While I agree with the rest of what you posted, this simply is not true:
There is a very large piece of this country that will follow his every word regardless of whether he is still president. Every inbred fuckwit that proudly wears a MAGA hat today will continue to do so for a long time to come. El Cheeto (who actually stole the election in 2016 thanks to electoral bullshit but soundly lost in 2020) will stay as prominent in politics as he can and though social media can freely shut his ass down. Washington may pretend in public not to be listening but his influence will hound us for a generation. His imperial uselessness is the voice of almost 50% of this country.
So to all those who voted for that lump of barely-human garbage, go eat a bag of cold dicks. The next 20 years of downward spiral in this country is all thanks to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Very Simple - The Long game
Oh I'm not arguing that what he says won't have repercussions, he's brought the assholes and scum front and center and they are likely to be taking his marching orders even out of office, my point is merely that he'll no longer have direct political power(even if he still has plenty of indirect through his cult), such that the 'he's the president, it's newsworthy what he says so he gets to ignore the rules' excuse will no longer be true and if social media wants to keep him on the platform they'll need to come up with another excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Simple - The Long game
Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparent?
The only thing that is apparent is that Section 230 protections got to go.
The big tech censorship ramps up to fever pitch every single ding dang day. The extreme censorship has got to be destroyed to save American democracy. If it means throwing the baby out with the bath water? Who cares at this point? Whatever it takes to stop the school marm Big Sister insanity that is happening in social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange thing to admit, but you do you
Your hated of the first amendment and property rights have been noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparent?
A) It is not censorship. It is moderation. Those are two very different things.
B) Even if there really is a bias, in any direction, there is nothing illegal about that even without 230.
C) Private property is private property. Nobody can dictate what someone, even a corporation, can do on and with their private property.
D) You do not have a right to post anything on the internet. It is a privilege allowed by private property owners. Privileges granted can be easily revoked.
E) Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparent?
I demand that articles instructing me to drink bleach not be censored or amended to add the fact checking propaganda saying that it will result in serious medical problems because this is Merica damn it and you will not outlaw mah cheese burgers!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick is fake news
Trump is not the one destroying the "open internet", Big Tech already destroyed it. You call this the "open internet" when GoogleTwitterFacebook routinely censor free speech just because they don't like what someone says?
Either repeal Section 230 or amend it to give Big Tech a choice, either they don't censor anything and keep liability protection or they can censor and now have no liability protection. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. The minute you censor content you have asserted control over it, you take responsibility for it.
Trump is not the problem. He is one of the few people in government who has the balls to stand up to BigTech. Mike, the Democrats you support take millions of dollars from these anti-free speech companies and just don't care as long as the money keeps flowing in. Trump supports free speech on the internet, you don't. (Let's see if my comment actually make it or are you going censor it too?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point
If you can't defend freedoms like those given by 230 them why even bother funding the military?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I expect a lot of laws to change in 2021, not just the DMCA or section 230
I would not be surprised if Congress updates the CFAA as well
I could see an item in the CFAA regarding jamming of wireless internet, like 3g and 4g.
And this could come about, I think, as the black market for Covid vaccines comes to pass, as Covid shipments are protected with GPS trackers, and tech saavy thieves jam the devices' wireless Internet to take the devices off the grid
It is not currently a crime to jam the wireless Internet on GPS trackers, but I could see the CFAA updated to address this. There is no criminal statute currently on the books at the federal level to address this kind of jamming, though state laws in Georgia and Florida exist regarding jamming ankle braclets or GPS trackers that police my place on your vehicle. Other than that, there is no criminal statute for jamming wireless Internet in the United States.
I could also see the CFAA updated to address something else not currently a crimne, deleting cookies to avoid paywalls on certain kinds of websites, like newspaper websites.
It has become pretty well known that if you delete your cookies, you will not get the thing that says you have exceeded your free article limit after a certain number of articles. And there is currently now way to stop that
Doing that does not currently violate the CFAA, but I could see the CFAA updated to address that.
While you might be violating state theft-of-service laws doing that, there is currently no specific law at the federal level to make that illegal. I do expect Congress to change that the next time the CFAA is updated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I could also see the CFAA updated to address something else not currently a crimne, deleting cookies to avoid paywalls on certain kinds of websites, like newspaper websites.
That would not only be a terrible idea it would be an effectively impossible one, as you'd have to either prohibit clearing cookies ever, which is not likely to go over well and would cause some real fun for a multitude of reasons(privacy, security, ownership over your own computer...), or you'd have to create and convince people to use permanent cookies that could not be deleted, something that I'm pretty sure would require insane amounts of access to a computer's systems and even then I'd give it a week before it was cracked.
Sites don't like it when people bypass a paywall by clearing their cookies then too damn bad, either go full paywall and require an account for any content or get used to it happening because the alternative is worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if they did prohibit clearing cookies, one could hide the evidence that they did by using anti-forensic tools, like KillDisk, and then reinstall their OS and all their programs.
No evidence = no CASE
And even if the USA did outlaw utilities like KillDisk, a lot of these programs are sold from abroad, where US law does not apply.
And sites that sold such utilities could start taking payments in Bitcoin, where, if it is done right, the transaction cannot be traced, so they could make a where they don't know and don't want to know who is buying products
This is also why banning VPNs would never work. Offshore providers could take payments in Bitcoin, and make a don't know and don't want to know policy of who is using their services.
The Felony Streaming Act will also have that problem, if it is expanded later on to include users. Offshore providers of pirated streams could also start taking payments in Bitcoins and keeping no logs, so that the Feds would have no way to prove they sold their services to US Customers.
As far as permanent cookies, those can be deleted by resintalling the operationg system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ditto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"address something else not currently a crimne, deleting cookies "
This is beyond ridiculous, outlaw the deletion of cookies?
You can not be serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Masnick disingenuously treats a website or search engine choosing to let defamation remain on its server as if it were somehow the user's behavior, when it's a separate harm recognized in every country other than the United States. The US is the only country with Section 230, yet somehow the internet is not destroyed anywhere else. England, Australia, India, Canada, Denmark, and about fifty other western nations all get by just fine without it.
Masnick's no independent journalist anyway. There's another arm to this site that takes money from those he covers. Doubt he would look too good if one were to deep-dive into his finances. It's also why he won't debate outside of here, where he talks down to a world that really doesn't notice him much beyond here.
I mean if someone judgment-proof or terminally ill were to google-bomb him with a story of say him raping a 14 year-old girl (not that anyone SHOULD, just saying IF they did), I bet his position on 230 would change overnight. There are people who've had lies like that told in divorce proceedings so it might not be real to him but it is to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then you'd be out of money because he won't change his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That depends on where Mike Masmnick and his servers are. If is using no servers hosted in the USA, they TD would not be subject to any USA laws.
That was Kim Dotcom's big mistake. Had none of his servers been in the United States, he would not be subject to American laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As far as I'm aware, TD is hosted in the US, although that's easily changed.
"That was Kim Dotcom's big mistake. Had none of his servers been in the United States, he would not be subject to American laws."
Mike is an American citizen, so he would presumably be subject to some laws even if he hosts elsewhere, certainly if he continues to reside there. The reason why Kim Dotcom's raid was so controversial is that he's a German/Finnish individual residing in New Zealand who (I believe) had never set foot in the US, yet he was raided in his foreign country of residence under the pretence of having broken US law. Somehow I don't think the support from the usual suspects would be the same if, say, Chinese authorities had raided an American living in London for breaking Chinese law in the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, if he moved out of the United States, and took all his servers with him, he would not be subject to any US laws.
If you do not live in the United States, you are not subject to its laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you would still be subject to laws, for example certain tax laws and any laws surrounding your citizenship. Your ability to reside in places would be subject to US law as well as local law, and extradition agreements would apply to you.
You wouldn't be covered in the same way as you would be if you are resident in the US, but it's certainly not true that zero US laws apply to you as a US citizen just because you don't live there at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We get it, you hate the fact that people can express negative opinions about Shiva Ayyadurai online — as well as state facts that don’t flatter him at all — and get away with it. Take your grievance-sharing pity party somewhere else; I recommend Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also: Stochastic terrorism isn’t any better when it’s calling for non-violent acts, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No such thing as "stochastic terrorism" Mike- er, "Steve."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
do continue ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Stochastic” essentially means “random”, right? So you’re talking about random terrorism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Hint hint, nudge nudge, know what I mean...'
Kinda? Stochastic terrorism as I understand the term is the name for the frankly pathetic 'Now I'm not saying anyone should do [terrible thing X to person Y], but It sure would be nice if someone were to do that...' tactic, the attempt to 'nudge' unhinged people into engaging in violent, harassing, or otherwise criminal acts while still maintaining a facade of plausible deniability because the speaker didn't directly tell them to do the act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of it as “mob boss terrorism”, if it helps you remember it better: A mafia don doesn’t have to explicitly say “kill this person” if the people who know him (or at least listen to him) know he wants said person killed, and at some point, someone will at least try to get that job done on behalf of the don.
…or Donald, as the case may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not even trying to hide yourself anymore, Jhon Smith. How's that Richard Liebowitz fund coming along, by the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How the fuck have you not died from Covid-19 yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
230 revoking doesn't matter
You don't have free speech now. Your speech is censored on all major social media platforms. Even td censors the people they don't agree with. Look what happened on Twitter how it censored anything that go with the "main stream media" in regards to the election. The locked the NYP account and removed many others. FB is even worse. You think 230 actually provides any protection and an open internet? lol you are even more brain dead than Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
[Citations needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
In your opinion, what does the word "censored" mean?
It has become more than obvious to the casual observer, that there are conflicting opinions about what this over used word actually means. This can and has lead to many a silly argument where neither contestant fully defines wtf they are talking about when they say censored. Some people out there just shake their heads thinking ... not again.
I suggest you turn on your brain before making silly accusations.
I would continue with my rant but I doubt you are able to follow the train of thought because it would include things like Third Party Liability and why that is bad for everyone .. including yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like mine, for example.
[cough]
[cough]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those are quite specific, to the point and referred to here. Shame that some do not understand it.
I see some people in various discussions conflating the first amendment, free speech and censored to the point that further discussion is impaired. Some think the first amendment protects their right to do whatever they so please upon the property of others. They call this free speech and if their speech is censored they scream that their first amendment rights have been violated. Their antics look like theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
You do not have the right to barge into every conversation and change the topic to the one you want to discuss. Nobody can be forced to listen to you, and you are not guaranteed an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, you're partially right...
Ignoring for a moment that a company or person moderating who is and is not allow to say certain things on their property is no more 'censorship' than a bar being able to kick an unruly drunk out the door or a store refusing to let someone in who's not wearing any clothing would be, you do realize that revoking 230 isn't going to change any of that I hope?
230 does not in any way allow or enable moderation, the first amendment and property rights do that, all 230 does is provide a quick and easy way to shortcut otherwise expensive lawsuits by making it clear that you can't sue a platform for the actions of a user, and that platforms do in fact have the right to control who is allowed on their property, so unless you want to argue against personal responsibility or the rights of property owners gutting 230 isn't going to help you, and will if anything merely help the ones you would attack by giving them even more power and making them even quicker to remove content, assuming they allowed it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I mean, you're partially right...
"230 does not in any way allow or enable moderation"
I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that 230 exists due to an old lawsuit against Demon where it was claimed that them moderating content implied agreement of anything that remained visible. If that had been found to be the case, very few online services could allow UGC, and most of the current targets of criticism didn't exist at that point.
"unless you want to argue against personal responsibility"
Sadly, my understanding is also that most of the people whining about this are people who have done or said something objectionable online, and want to hold the platform responsible for moderating what they said, rather than taking personal responsibility for being an obnoxious dickhead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I mean, you're partially right...
I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that 230 exists due to an old lawsuit against Demon where it was claimed that them moderating content implied agreement of anything that remained visible. If that had been found to be the case, very few online services could allow UGC, and most of the current targets of criticism didn't exist at that point.
Roughly, yeah, as the lawsuit(Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where it was ruled that because Prodigy moderated some content they were liable for everything on the platform) that resulted in 230 showed sites were already quite capable of moderation, all 230 does is make it so that moderation doesn't create a legal risk for the site so that they would feel safe removing content that they didn't want on their own property, and make it clear that you're not allowed to sue the site for content that they don't remove(barring some specific exceptions like content that violates federal laws or copyright related content).
Take away 230 and sites are still entirely within their rights to moderate and host user submitted content, it's just riskier to do so and basically all of the alternatives(no moderation ever, insanely restrictive posting or no posting at all) are worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I mean, you're partially right...
"Take away 230 and sites are still entirely within their rights to moderate and host user submitted content, it's just riskier to do so and basically all of the alternatives(no moderation ever, insanely restrictive posting or no posting at all) are worse."
Yeah, that is the problem. I hate anything that ends up in a binary theory, but the only realistic options are that any site that can remove UGC does so (and a majority of them get shut down, leaving only a handful of cash rich corporations), or that they just don't moderate and every site turns into 8chan. I can't see any other outcome, and I don't think anyone can be happy with the results.
The silver lining would be that what had to be made explicit in US law is already implicit in law in many other countries, and so those services could continue by moving elsewhere and service the rest of the world exclusively, but I don't believe that this is a good situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Since I can't be wrong must be everyone else...'
(Bah, missed the second half with my first reply)
Sadly, my understanding is also that most of the people whining about this are people who have done or said something objectionable online, and want to hold the platform responsible for moderating what they said, rather than taking personal responsibility for being an obnoxious dickhead.
I suspect that's a mix of ego, denial and entitlement.
Taking personal responsibility would require them to admit that maybe other people are justified in calling them assholes, which simply cannot be the case, and since that's clearly not true then the problem must be on the other side, and lastly entitlement kicks in where since the problem is on the side of the platforms clearly it's the platforms that need to be forced to change because they have a right to speak their minds where everyone else can hear it and shouldn't have to go to platforms that actually welcome the sort of stuff they support and believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
sigh How many times do we have to tell you people? Private companies, by definition, cannot infringe on anyone’s free speech unless they are engaging in one of the few functions traditionally reserved exclusively to the government, which social media companies do not. Running a forum is not something reserved to the government.
Furthermore, by definition, it’s not censorship if it’s not done with or by the government or you can say the exact same thing somewhere else. Just go to Parler or 8kun or something. Twitter and/or Facebook removing your speech from their platform(s) or banning you from their platform(s) for your speech on their platform(s) is no more censorship than a bar kicking someone out for being too loud or disruptive, even if only through speech. Social media companies have every right to do what they’re doing. If you don’t like it, go to another platform or make your own. You’re not being censored. You’re being told, “We don’t do that here,” and they’re showing you the door.
Okay, this is even more ridiculous. It’s not censorship if the speech is still there and the government isn’t punishing you for it. Hidden speech is absolutely not censored speech. Anyone can view hidden comments on this site with a single click/tap. It’s not that hard.
Additionally, it’s the community that decides which comments get hidden, not the people running the site.
And again, even if those comments were being removed (which they indisputably are not), that’s still not censorship. It’s just the people who go to this site telling you that your contributions aren’t welcome here. You can always take your ball and go somewhere else.
And it gets even more ridiculous. Look, if you can still see the speech, and the government isn’t punishing you for it, it makes no sense whatsoever to call it censorship. Adding a note contradicting what you say isn’t censorship. Adding a note saying that what you’re saying is disputed isn’t censorship either. And, of course, one or two companies removing your speech from their platforms in a world where more than two platforms exist isn’t censorship either.
Again, that’s still not censorship. The NYP site is still up, so you can view their content there. They’re clearly not being censored. As for the others, again, there are other places they can put their speech. There is no law or right that says you have to be able to put your speech on Facebook or Twitter specifically, nor that you’re owed a large platform in general. Nor could there be under the 1A.
Just because some internet platforms are closed to you doesn’t mean the internet itself is closed to you. And if moderation is the issue for you, then §230 isn’t your problem; the 1A is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"You’re not being censored. You’re being told, “We don’t do that here,” and they’re showing you the door."
...and like any belligerent drunk, they argue with the bouncer until they either decide to leave and apologise next time, or they're told not to come back inside. This is not controversial to anyone who understands things.
"The NYP site is still up, so you can view their content there"
The NYP account is also still on Twitter. It was temporarily suspended until they removed the objectionable content, which as you correctly state does not affect the content on the actual NYP site.
"Just because some internet platforms are closed to you doesn’t mean the internet itself is closed to you."
The simple problem is that the people complaining understand that they get less traffic (and therefore, less grift money) if they stick to places where they are welcome, and so they need to remove the rights of the places they want to post to get what they want. Which, ironically, would result in those platforms being smaller and less open than they are right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Okay, this is even more ridiculous. It’s not censorship if the speech is still there and the government isn’t punishing you for it. Hidden speech is absolutely not censored speech. Anyone can view hidden comments on this site with a single click/tap. It’s not that hard.
It's not just ridiculous it's a deliberate, dishonest strawman. Saying that people are being 'censored'(moderated in actuality) because people 'disagree with them' is being insanely generous to those that have their comments flagged, because in almost all cases comments are flagged due to being from people with a known history of gross dishonesty, refusal to engage honestly and a penchant for verbal shit-flinging at the first chance they get.
To say that people are having their comments flagged due to 'disagreement' is like saying that an admitted member of the KKK harassing black people in a private store being asked to leave is because the staff 'disagree' with them and their 'message'; even to the extent that it might be true it's a massive mischaracterization of the situation in an attempt to make the asshole involved look better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Glad to see everyone is ok with being censored. Yes moderation is censorship I don't care how you word it. I say something you don't like and it get's removed or in the case of my op flagged. And thank you TD for proving my point 100%. You either have free speech or you don't. Even hate speech is still covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn't matter if it makes your feefees hurted. All these comment have shown is that nobody truly understands what free speech and censorship of it really is. It doesn't matter if it is off topic I can still saw what ever I want. Ban or remove my post is censoring what I have to say.
Either websites have free speech and allow anything or they don't and the censor/moderate it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you sensor in any way shape or form then you shouldn't be protected from suits or lash back. If you don't censor or mod then you are hands off and therefore immune. Nothing will change if 230 is removed. Maybe there will be more censorship than before but, that is already happening. There is no such thing as a free internet. Corps own the net like the own the world. Free internet is what they want you to think it is. Go ahead and flag this comment to since it goes against what you believe and it will only prove my point even more.
Also if you rtfa you would have seen it wasn't trump that blocked it but, a senator. Anything to bash trump even if you have to lie and make crap up. I really hope you are ready for Haris to be president. You think censorship is bad now and 230 magically protects you? Wait till the real censorship comes. Gonna laugh when our internet is just like China's and NK. Remember, you brought this upon yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the government is enforcing moderation decisions on Twitter, Twitter moderation is not censorship. Replace “Twitter” with any privately owned website of your choice; the song will remain the same.
I get that you don’t like the Techdirt equivalent of being told “we don’t do that here”, but that isn’t censorship. That’s people telling you that you’re being an asshole and showing you the door.
And the government doesn’t have the right to make anyone either say or host such speech. Compelled speech and compelled association violate that First Amendment you so desperately cling to like a security blanket.
We understand it better than you ever will.
Only if you aren’t allowed to repost it literally anywhere else. (You can totally repost it literally anywhere else.) Otherwise, it’s moderation, and it doesn’t infringe upon your First Amendment rights because the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to use anyone else’s private property as your personal soapbox.
“Either your house has free speech and allows anything or it doesn’t and you censor/moderate it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” That’s you right now, only translated to put the private property in meatspace. Do you still think your logic should apply?
You literally can’t guarantee that. Neither can lawmakers. Only the largest services with the biggest bankrolls will have the resources to fight off the lawsuits that a lack of 230 protections will allow to happen; every other service will either overmoderate, refuse to moderate, or stop accepting third party submissions (which would also shut down a sizeable number of websites) to avoid the legal liability from which 230 currently immunizes them.
The funny thing is, I happen to agree with you on that one point: The corporate takeover of the Internet is more than a little disconcerting. But whereas you see revoking 230 as a pushback against that, anyone with a lick of sense sees revoking 230 as helping the takeover continue, since only the biggest corporate-owned websites — the already-entrenched major players such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook — will stay up in the wake of Section 230’s revocation. They’ll be the only sites that have the resources to fight off frivolous/bullshit lawsuits, after all.
Literally the first paragraph of this article contains this sentence (emphasis mine): “As threatened, [Donald] Trump today vetoed the massive National Defense Authorization Act, living up to his promise to veto it if it didn't include the complete revocation of Section 230 of the Communications Act, which has nothing to do with funding our military.”
“I don’t care how much I get hurt, so long as I can laugh at you getting hurt.” Jesus Christ, dude, you’re a fucking psycho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Why are people not allowed to form groups that exclude you? What you want is not free speech, but rather the right to but in and derail any conversation that you stumble on. Is that because you want to stamp your authoritarian views on the whole of society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"Why are people not allowed to form groups that exclude you?"
Because these people have never passed the adolescent stage of mental development. They seem to believe that the world revolves around them, and are shocked that other people are allowed differing opinions. Also, they really don't understand the right to free association and how it relates to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No fair, how dare you apply consequences for my actions!'
What you want is not free speech, but rather the right to but in and derail any conversation that you stumble on. Is that because you want to stamp your authoritarian views on the whole of society?
What people like that want is not free speech but consequence-free speech, where they can say or act however they want, revel in being the biggest asshole they can and people and platforms aren't allowed to apply any consequences for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'No fair, how dare you apply consequences for my actions!'
"What people like that want is not free speech but consequence-free speech"
Yes, which is the problem. These people think they should have rights that have never applied on physical property, and in doing so remove the rights of people who don't want them on their property.
"where they can say or act however they want, revel in being the biggest asshole they can"
Of course, the real problem is that they can do that, it's just that the only places they can do it is in tiny communities of people who are just like them... and not even they want to hang around exclusively with people like them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'No fair, how dare you apply consequences for my actions!'
" consequence-free speech, where they can say or act however they want, revel in being the biggest asshole they can and people and platforms aren't allowed to apply any consequences for it."
Describes the anti-mask morons that waltz into various places of business sans mask all proud of their wanton disregard for others and themselves.
I have a medical condition they say ... yeah, a mental condition.
I have a note form the doctor .. it is print out from the web
Oh - and they only respect medical doctors while ignoring medical doctor's advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'No fair, how dare you apply consequences for my actions
Yes, it's slightly different but the same root cause - some people believe their personal comfort and/or "rights" outweigh those of everyone else. They should have the right to abuse, infect, even attack minimum wage workers, but those workers should not have the right to a comfortable, safe workspace if it interrupts their day. They should have the right to hurl abuse at people on Twitter, lie and misrepresent, but others there should not have the right to tell them to leave or correct the lies.
It's the same argument - their rights and comfort outweigh everyone else's... until they suffer real consequences for their actions then they're sorry and everyone else should let them do what they want again. At least with the section 230 argument they're not killing people while they do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"Glad to see everyone is ok with being censored."
Everybody is "censored" by the ridiculous version of the term you're trying to use. It's just that most intelligent people perform some kind of self-censorship or moderation depending on the audience they're addressing. We are all in situations every day where we have to hold back on something we would say or do if we weren't in the present time and place, it's part of a functioning society.
If you refuse to self-censor and say or do inappropriate things, then others there have the right to tell that you're an asshole and stop or get out. That's not censorship, that's you having consequences for your actions. The fact that you're being kicked off Twitter instead of being kicked out of Wal Mart for racial abuse doesn't make it censorship.
"All these comment have shown is that nobody truly understands what free speech and censorship of it really is"
The sad thing is, they do. You're the one who needs to pretend that Techdirt forums are the government for your whining to make sense. Everyone else is dealing with the real world rules.
"Also if you rtfa you would have seen it wasn't trump that blocked it but, a senator"
The article above that's sourcing the linked CNN article that starts "President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the sweeping defense bill", or did you only read as far as Inhofe's tweet claiming that Trump agrees with him on this issue?
"Gonna laugh when our internet is just like China's and NK."
Why is your country so uniquely bad at these things that you think it will happen, even though no such thing is happening in countries that you claim are less free than you are right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"Glad to see everyone is ok with being censored."
"You either have free speech or you don't."
"Even hate speech is still covered by the 1st amendment. "
"All these comment have shown is that nobody truly understands what free speech and censorship of it really is."
Here we have a good example of conflation in action. All three (censor, free speech, 1st amendment) in the same sentence as though they were talking about the same thing. This seems to be common place amongst those who attempt obfuscation, distraction and outright bullshit.
"If you sensor in any way shape or form "
and now I am not to use any of my my five senses - why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
edit: sentences all in same paragraph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
By your incredibly broad (and wrong) definitions of “censorship” and “free speech”, I suppose we are okay with “censorship” and against “free speech” in some situations. We’re okay with it if it’s completely voluntary or if it’s limited in scope and enacted by private persons without government interference.
That said, that’s not what those words actually mean. Censorship means that the government is punishing you for your speech or you’re unable to say it at all without fear of government-imposed consequences. It does not include the consequences of speech imposed by society or private persons without government enforcement, nor does it include simply making the speech less visible (like hiding comments or adding context). (It can extend to other things, like bleeping out swear words or putting a mosaic on genitalia or something like that, but those are inapplicable here, and your definition of censorship is still too broad.)
Free speech is the right for private persons to say (or not say) whatever they want without government interference. It does not mean that your speech is free from consequences imposed by society or other private persons, including corporations, and those consequences may include (but are not limited to) having your speech removed from or hidden on some privately owned platform(s), being delisted from or downgraded on some privately owned search engine(s), or being banned or having your profile locked (permanently or temporarily) from some privately owned platform(s). It doesn’t mean that you have the right to say whatever you want on someone else’s private property, the right to be heard, or the right to a particular audience or an audience of a certain size.
Under these (correct) definitions, we are very much pro-free speech and anti-censorship. The only ones who don’t understand what free speech and censorship are are people like you who make the definitions so broad that just about everyone is opposed to free speech in some shape or form.
Also, the 1A only restricts the government from interfering with speech, not private individuals, private corporations, or NGOs. What is or isn’t protected by the 1A means nothing to what should or shouldn’t be moderated.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy even under your fallacious definitions of free speech and censorship. There’s also the option to allow absolutely nothing.
But seriously, even under a relatively broad definition of free speech that goes beyond being free from the government, it’s actually possible to have free speech and moderate some speech on the platforms. For one thing, even under your own definitions, libel is not protected free speech, and so moderating it would not be infringing on free speech. Furthermore, hiding some comments but still allowing them to be easily viewed or adding context is not against even the broadest plausible (though still wrong) definition of free speech.
First off, no one is saying that any sites are or should be immune to backlash over moderation decisions. In fact, we have supported that as 1A-protected free speech (even if we disagree on specific instances of backlash). You’re attacking a strawman there.
Second, §230 expressly says otherwise, and the specific motivating intent behind the law was to allow sites to be free from liability for third-party content even if they moderate. There was a court case that held a site liable for third-party content because they moderate their site to be family-friendly, which provided the impetus for §230.
There’s also the general issue that there is no distributor liability for defamation, period, under the 1A, and the right to moderate your own platform is guaranteed under the 1A (free speech and free association) and property rights, so you’d be wrong even without §230.
That contradicts what you just said, and also, you don’t know that. You haven’t even presented evidence to support that claim.
That isn’t even the site engaging in moderation; that’s just users using a tool provided to them to moderate the site.
I also don’t see how it will prove your point at all. You weren’t previously alleging that TD hides content that they disagree with, and that would do nothing to show that corporations control the net (they don’t; they only control parts of it), what sites are protected from liability, or that your definitions of free speech and censorship are true and correct.
If you’re talking about the omnibus spending/COVID bill, you’re partially right. Trump did veto that bill on other grounds, and one senator (Lindsey Graham) is threatening to block overriding the veto of that bill if it doesn’t repeal or reform §230, but it’s not clear if that threat has any weight behind it. That said, Trump did veto another bill (the NDAA) because it didn’t repeal §230. No senator was responsible for even threatening to attempt to block it AFAIK.
Well, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Also, please learn to use commas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
I'm sorry you lemmings are all ok with having your rights stripped away because it is the 'in' thing to do. The internet is not open, the internet is not free and it never will be. Enjoy what "freedom" you have left while you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
I’m not okay with having my rights removed. The issue is that neither §230 nor any private companies can or have removed any of my rights that ever actually existed in the first place, and your proposed “solution” would actually remove or violate rights that actually exist.
You want to have unlimited, unqualified access to someone else’s private property to say whatever you want on that property and have that communication preserved by the owners of that property. You have never had that right.
And you have not demonstrated that the internet is not open or free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
Well if it's private property then why the need for 230? Aren't there already laws that protect them? 230 allows platforms to remove speech they don't agree with and have no consequences for doing so. How is that giving people rights? That just keeps the door open to convert platforms into echo-chambers and silence any descent or anything they don't agree with. Like they are now. Like this damn website is. That violates more rights than you say they protect. "It's private property so they can do that!" So why the need for 230? By removing 230 that would keep platforms in check so they can't violate people's rights and if they do they can be punished. Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to influence elections. They shouldn't be allowed to silence people if they have a differing opinion that they don't agree with. That's your proof it isn't open and free. "Personal property durrdurr". Also you seem totally ok with having other people's rights stripped if you don't agree with them right? "It hasn't happened to me so it doesn't happen at all."
And no one has proven that the internet is actually free and open. Being allowed to use it, at a cost, doesn't mean it's free and open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
It’s not giving people rights; it’s helping protect existing rights. §230 makes it easier to get out of lawsuits that target the wrong party and such.
Again, you’re asking for rights that never existed in the first place. Even without §230, you don’t have the right to force a privately owned platform to host your speech. The rights that you say these websites violate simply don’t exist. As such, they cannot be violated.
Also, TD doesn’t silence anyone. We can still read what you write.
§230 is basically a shortcut, and platforms cannot violate people’s rights the way you say they do by definition. What you are alleging is a violation of your rights doesn’t violate any rights that actually exist.
The 1A says that we can’t do anything about it.
And they can’t. That they refuse to host you or your speech does not silence you. You can take your speech elsewhere.
No, that’s proof that certain websites aren’t 100% open and free. Facebook and Twitter are not the internet. Again, you can take your speech elsewhere on the internet. You would have to prove that people are being blocked from speaking on the internet at all to prove your point.
You make fun of it, but you haven’t actually alleged any problems with that argument. Their property, their rules. That’s how it is, and that’s how it always has been in the history of this country. That you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.
No, I’m okay with stripping rights that never existed. It’s the same way I’m okay with the mass killing of unicorns.
If a private platform did the same thing to me, I wouldn’t call it a violation of my rights. I might question the decision or even be outraged by it, but I won’t argue that they don’t or shouldn’t have the legal right to do so.
That’s not what I said. I said that people being blocked from certain internet platforms for their speech on those platforms by the private owners of those platforms doesn’t violate or remove anyone’s rights. In fact, private individuals/corporations/organizations, by definition, cannot infringe on your 1A rights no matter what they do.
I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that platforms remove speech they don’t like from their platforms and block people they disagree with. I am not assuming that it doesn’t happen at all because I haven’t experienced it. I’m just saying that that doesn’t constitute a violation of anyone’s rights, it’s not censorship, and it’s not silencing people.
Basically, no matter what it is you think private websites are doing, it’s not violating anyone’s rights at all (unless you mean privacy rights, but that has absolutely nothing to do with §230).
That’s not what “free and open” means in this context. Price has nothing to do with it. Also, you have the burden of proof wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"Again, you can take your speech elsewhere on the internet"
...and we get again to the real issue. They don't want "freedom" to speak, they want a free, large, audience. No matter how much they pretend otherwise, this is not a right, never has been and never will be. Even if they got what they wanted and forced the current mainstream sites to host them, that would just drive other traffic away from them - and no matter how much they wish, cat pictures and family discussions are always going to be more popular than white supremacism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I have a right to be an asshole on their lawn damnit!'
It never ceases to amaze and amuse how quickly the 'small government, personal responsibility and free market' lot are to jump right to arguing that the government has a right to force companies to host speech they don't want to, all in order to 'protect' a fictional 'right' that don't and never has existed, that being the 'right' to use someone else's property to speak from without their consent.
In an attempt to 'protect' a right that never existed they encourage the violation of one that actually does, you just can't make this stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 230 revoking doesn't matter
"Well if it's private property then why the need for 230? Aren't there already laws that protect them?"
In most other countries, it's implicit in existing laws that a platform cannot be sued for something someone used their property to say if there was no prior editing process. So, for example, a newspaper can be sued for something said in its editorial. They cannot be sued for something that someone scribbled on a copy after publication. The laws are robust enough that this also applies to online publications without alteration.
The US is unique in the fact that people can and do sue over pretty much anything, and there's a loophole that means that platforms online can potentially be held liable for things done on their property. Hence, after the Demon lawsuit, section 230 was created to make explicit what is implicit elsewhere.
There's also the issue of private property. In the physical world, people are allowed to police their own property without issue in most circumstances. If there's someone being disruptive to other customers, the restaurant owner is free to kick them out. They don't even have to wait for them to become disruptive - they can refuse to hold a klan meeting even if the klan haven't yet started hurling racist abuse yet. On the flipside, they can't really be held legally liable just because a customer on the next table found their neighbours' conversation offensive. Section 230 preserve these rights for online platforms.
The problem is that you act as if these are new things, but they're really just saying that private property owners don't lose their rights that would be obvious elsewhere just because they're online.
"Twitter and Facebook should not be allowed to influence elections."
So... they should be free to moderate accounts that are trying to do this by spreading misinformation?
"They shouldn't be allowed to silence people if they have a differing opinion that they don't agree with"
They can't. They can just say "you can't use our property to say those things". You have hundreds of other ways to say things. If you're being kicked off all of them, maybe you should examine why that is, and it's typically not because there's a grand conspiracy against you.
"Also you seem totally ok with having other people's rights stripped if you don't agree with them right? "
No rights are being stripped from anyone. Expect, of course, the personal property rights and rights to free association of the platform and their remaining customers who have asked for you to be told to leave. Remember, in a lot of these cases it's not Twitter saying you should be kicked off - they're responding to complaints from other users.
What rights are you imagining you lost by being told that one platform is asking you to leave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's Nothing Wrong With That
Look man, I don't know if you've heard about Cadblox, but Cadblox offers the best damn BIM Technology on the market, bar none. I mean, have you even tried to reduce labor through a 3d construction model? Have you attempted to eliminate conflicts between MEP and FP systems with Lidar laser scanning technology? I didn't think so. Rice University, the Milwaukee Bucks, the St. Louis Arch grounds - all clients of the greatest 3d construction modeling service in America. It's Cadblox. Give it a try. Today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]