Conservative Inc. is planning to monopolize and censor the internet by removing section 230 protections. Voat.co and crypto are threatened. (Conspiracy)

submitted ago by cm18

Heads up. Fake conservatives are actively pushing to remove section 230 protections to solidify big tech's monopoly on the internet. Alt-tech has been taking up the slack where twitter, Facebook, Reddit and YouTube have been banning users. Trump's AG, William Barr, has been circulating the idea of removing these protections which shield websites from liability and prosecution for user generated content . Removing these protections will kill all alt tech because they will not be able to afford the costs of policing content. Only Big Tech will have the ability to/and are the only sites currently policing content.

As a sign that this is a serious threat, Paul Singer recently invested heavily in Twitter. On the surface this looks like a conservative trying to undo left leaning bias, but twitter is barely profitable and Singer is known to be a culture capitalist. His move only makes sense if twitter is about to become a monopoly and drastically increase in value.

Billionaire Republican buys major Twitter stake, may oust CEO amid GOP concerns of bias, reports say

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)

Also, I have been following AIM4Truth.org (appears to be a Trump shilling site), and they interviewed a guy that was talking about seeing crypto nodes for supporting criminal activity. However such a lawsuit would fail due to section 230 protections. If these protections are removed, crypto is dead.

NICK FUENTES: AMERICA FIRST - Nick is a conservative calling out the bad actors in the conservative movement that are seeking to censor the internet.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Tallest_Skil ago

Section 230 doesn’t protect that. You fundamentally do not understand it.

cm18 ago

Craigslist shuts down its personals section

"The legislation, now awaiting President Donald Trump's signature, would create an exception to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which would pave the way for victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that facilitate their abuse."

SESTA was a trial run. Full removal of 230 would be devastating to the internet as we know it. The internet would become the TV of the 21st century. You can watch, but not interact.

Tallest_Skil ago

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with your “right” to post somewhere. It does nothing for you. It protects website owners from legal liability for postings by others on said websites.

If I create a website that says “no pro-jew content can be posted here,” I GET TO DELETE LITERALLY ANYTHING I WANT, ANY TIME I WANT, FOR ANY REASON THAT I WANT AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME. I can delete all pro-jew content on that website. You do not have any right, whatsoever, to post content I do not want on my own website. Section 230 does NOTHING about this.

cm18 ago

And you don't understand funcking shit.

I said removing 230 creates monopolies. And what do you think the funcking monopolies are currently doing? Censoring funcking content! And if you don't like the censorship, you go elsewhere. 230 protects those alternatives.

GET A FUCKING BRAIN YOU DIP SHITT.

Tallest_Skil ago

I said removing 230 creates monopolies.

And you would be wrong. You have no idea what it says.

And what do you think the funcking monopolies are currently doing? Censoring funcking content!

Magical. This has nothing to do with 230.

And if you don't like the censorship, you go elsewhere.

There’s nowhere else.

230 protects those alternatives.

It literally does not. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

cm18 ago

You are full of shit. SESTA is a perfect example of what will result. To think that viable alternatives and free speech will thrive without 230 is BS.

What are you? A shill that purchased a boat account or something?

Tallest_Skil ago

SESTA is a perfect example of what will result.

Has nothing to do with 230.

To think that viable alternatives and free speech will thrive without 230 is BS.

You have no fucking idea what 230 says. It has nothing to do with speech. Sit down and shut up.

What are you?

Laughing at how illiterate and retarded you are.

A shill

“WAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOMMY BAD MAN SAY TRUE THING I NO LIKE HE SHIIIIIIIIIILL”

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.

IT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT ANYONE CAN CENSOR ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON AND YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING YOU ARE CLAIMING. PUT A BULLET IN YOUR SUBHUMAN RETARDED HEAD.

Diggernicks ago

Just tighten up your tinfoil buttplug and cease crying