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 →
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.
UsernamesAreSo1993 ago
I swear this guy ^^ Tallests_Kill is part of a deeply planned out disinformation campaign. I was reading some other crap he posted like this.. it's very authoritative, it seems to make logical sense and first glance, but upon critical examination it is 100% backwards wrong and totally diminishes the morally correct stance (Freedom and Justice, etc).
Let's examine his post. Classic dis-info techniques. First, his goal is to try to negate the helpful info/warning the OP is offering. He 100% disagrees. No middle ground. Has to use caps-yelling to do it. Associates racism with "our side". He uses a straw-man argument.. shifting the premise over to "I have the right to delete" therefore "Section 230 does not protect you". This does not follow because a website owner's ability to delete does not change with or without Section 230 protections. It is the ability to be anonymous on the web that will disappear if website owners become liable for user content. Do you think they will just claim ownership/liability of your illegal postings? Or will they cover their own asses, by screwing yours?
As it is, Section 230 gives a traditional, logical "common carrier" or "public utility" type status to information service providers. That is how come you don't sue the telephone company or the post office if someone uses their services to commit a crime.
Though crimes would surely be lessened if voters made the government hire extra people to listen in on every phone call and open every letter/package to make sure no crimes were being committed.
If Tallest_Shil wants to make website owners responsible for content they didn't create, why not the server companies hosting the website, or the ISP, or the electric company causing these offensive electric light signals to assault your eyeballs?? It's an illogical slippery slope with a cost to everyone far outweighing the harm for a few.
The fact that Smallest_Ski up here doesn't even whimper the slightest concern for our liberties at danger exposes them as a purposeful conniving anti-patriot piece of shit shill, IMHO. No person is that stupid by accident.
Fuck that guy! Keep on eye on his common theme.
Tallest_Skil ago
Neck yourself. It’s all so tiresome.
You have no idea what COINTELPRO even is.
There is none. OP lied about everything.
That’s what truth is, dipshit.
Compromise is a jewish technique to get you to abandon reality.
No, but you’re too retarded to read what’s written normally, so caps make you incapable of ignoring facts that hurt your feelings.
YOU ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE, NEWFAG SHILL. YOU ARE NOT PART OF US. YOU NEVER HAVE BEEN, YOU NEVER WILL BE.
Racism is the only objectively correct behavior. Your very existence is a lie. You spit in the face of human civilization. All your thoughts, all your words, all your actions are OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT because you make them from the standpoint of the jewish hoax of anti-racism. Get the fuck off our website. You’re not one of us and never will be. You’ve invalidated everything you said.
You have no fucking idea what you’re saying, illiterate.
No, shlomo, OP invented an argument out of thin air (sound familiar?) and I blew him the fuck out with the truth.
Again, shlomo, OP lied. The premise is Section 230. I posted what it says (funny how you didn’t reply to THAT post, but rather the other one…), and nothing OP said is real.
THANK YOU FOR REPEATING WHAT I SAID, IDIOT.
Section 230 has nothing to do with anonymity, illiterate.
They already are when it’s illegal. Anything illegal is “anything jews say is illegal.” And anything jews say is illegal is everything pro-white. You, being an anti-racist paid jewish shill, don’t care about this. You care about your cat videos being associated with your real name. Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.
Congratulations on disproving OP’s claim.
It’s poetry, it really is. Every single fucking time you faggots do the same thing. Almost as though you’re all contracted by the same company to read from the same script or something…
I’m not even going to address how it doesn’t apply to section 230, because you’re so far off base that anyone who reads it will instantly know you’re lying.
Aaaaaaaaand STRAWMAN! Try again, shlomo!
You literally just have the Wikipedia page for logical fallacies open and are picking them at random, aren’t you.
HAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
So when did YOU stop beating your wife, sockpuppet? Go on. You can tell us.
My Q-LARP detector is reaching critical levels.
Correct. You are THAT stupid because you were brainwashed into being that stupid. or are likely paid.
Thank you for personally admitting that every word I said is fact. You refuted nothing I said. You addressed nothing I said. You openly agreed with me that OP lied and that section 230 has nothing to do with anything you claimed.
GET OFF OUR WEBSITE. FOREVER. YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE.