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.
view the rest of the comments →
CultureOfCritique ago
I don't think you get the point of removing section 230 protection. Big tech companies cannot survive in a legal environment where they're responsible for all the content that's posted. Imagine trying to police every Facebook live video stream, every Twitter post, every Youtube video for illegal content-- they can't do it. If even one little infringing post gets through, they're liable, so they'd have to read and censor every single thing that's said.
That's the point... it's impossible. They would have to simply shut down the platforms, which they won't do for obvious profit reasons. Threatening to remove section 230 protection would force them to stop censoring conservatives (like Nick Fuentes) whose message they don't like, because they would have to demonstrate political neutrality in enforcing their rules. It's like threatening to nuke North Korea... obviously it wasn't going to happen, but it scared them enough to come to the table and negotiate.
cm18 ago
Does not matter if they cannot police all the content. They will simply shut down open public content and screen every single submission... selectively allowing each post as they see fit. It basically puts a very narrow funnel on speech.
Incorrect. These fake conservatives are using this narrative to fool Trump supporters into thinking that these 230 exclusions will only be applied to big tech. The talks being had by Barr remove ALL 230 protections. Punishing big tech censorship is the cover story. In actuality they are trying to reighn in everything on the the internet. Only Big Tech with all the eyeballs can be profitable in that environment. Social media as we know it (being able to share information without restraints) will be history.