I feel like this will backfire

>FCC: you’re liable for what your users say
>Big Tech: Ok Republicans are banned from social media
>Donald Trump tweets: LAW AND ORDER but no one heard him on a banned twitter account
>Deplatformed Republicans lose election

Attached: BE6FCD9A-164F-43E9-B0D5-A9644B2F34A5.jpg (1125x1768, 890.73K)

Ajit Pai's thing is just an election stunt that will do nothing but they want to actually repeal the law.

Repealing section 230 is exactly what pressure groups like the ADL and the record/ movie studios want. If they repeal it you can say goodbye to sites like mega, Zig Forums, or whatever the current nazi forum people post on because they get burried in lawsuits from pressure groups like ADL


section 230 is precisely what allows this site to exist. It says that hosts are not responsible for user-generated content. A lot of people seem to believe that it is what allows censorship by google and facebook. These people are retards.
It doesn't say that at all, it just says that they're not responsible for content if they choose not to censor.
Revising section 230 won't make censorship online go away. It's going to make facebook and google liable for content, which makes them significantly more likely to censor. It's going to be used against Zig Forums and it's not unreasonable to believe it would ultimately kill this site.

Attached: 1602658776782.jpg (1024x948, 135.37K)

Less than 30% of America is on social media. Those who are mostly live in blue states.

Niggers tongue my anus.

They already dont let us post bud

Places like Zig Forums already moderates illegal posts so we have nothing to lose

Nigger you can't shut down this site unless they knowingly hosted illegal shit and they already moderately.

Kike shill detected. It would effect sites like Zig Forums at all. If you only moderate illegal content it won't affect you.

Except that's not how it works. Read FCC regs.

>class action lawsuit against twitter for the damage that antifa and blm caused to cities by allowing them to organise riots on their platform
>twitter folds

Could you explain why?
It's hard to find straight answers among the shilling.
From how i take it, section 230 says that the platform can't get sued for something a user posts, right?

You're missing a key trade-off.
IF a site doesn't censor, it is a platform.
IF a site censors, it is an editor.

The problem here is IF a site censors, it can be sued for not censoring content that causes harm. And IF a site doesn't censor, it has to allow propaganda or fake news or things against their core values, or narratives against their interests.

They can't have their cake and eat it too, and that's what they're trying to do.

only if they're acting as a platform and not editorializing content
sticking (((fact-checks))), adding trigger warnings and banning everything the right posts is editorializing content

exactly, which is why repealing section 230 is stupid as fuck!

Platforms can't control the spin, and editors can be sued.

Big Tech wants to censor as it sees fit and remain free from legal liability.


Regular people and libertarian/conservative leaning people are noticing the pro-left slant and are pointing out that online platforms are operating as "public squares" and should be open freely to the citizenry. No slant, no leaning, no personal or corporate consors or edits. But Big Tech doesn't want that. So they double down on "private companies can do whatever they want, first amendment doesn't apply".

They are way more fucked by 230 being repealed than any user base would be. There's always the next start-up to replace the old platform. Just as Myspace replaced yahoo chatrooms and MSN replaced ICQ, Facebook replaced Myspace, Skype and Zoom replaced MSN, something new will replace them.

230 keeps Facebook and Twitter in "power", and getting rid of 230 gets rid of Facebook and Twitter monopoly and opens the floodgates for innovation and competition.

Thanks.
So if it's reworded correctly there shouldn't be issues, except people complaining of annuda shoa.

What about the jannies? Would their "selective janny-ing" be considered editorializing?

That's with 230

Without it

Pressure groups like ADL will sue sites like Zig Forums all day long for what you say until they either quickly stop you from saying it, or go bankrupt trying to defend lawsuits from a pressure group with with unlimited resources

Attached: 1591924723076.png (1024x544, 820.11K)

Literally made up. You think you can't have a democrats only forum with the same protection as a normal forum? Are you retarded? They just keep repeating this absurd illogical shit

Attached: 1602180517032.png (322x527, 147.91K)

>IF a site doesn't censor, it is a platform.
>IF a site censors, it is an editor.
for the love of fucking god, this is not true. show me in the law where it states anything like this.

False flag Internet attack.
Start a few websites that cause damage, then lockdown internet

from what i understand, it is already worded in a way that these social media companies are already breaking the rules
they just say "the right is breaking our rules" after they create and/or change the rules to intentionally forbid the policies and views of the right, and nobody in government has had the balls to enforce 230
maybe something will happen this time with it being such blatant election interference but it remains to be seen

jannies are trannies that ban shit that triggers them as well but it would harder to prove

Twitter and Facebook are fucked and armchair Jewing can’t save them, trannies.

Attached: 60F407A1-0645-4FCF-BBE2-6D01BD2AB298.jpg (540x960, 140.01K)

You're talking about membership or targeted demographics, not content or user generated material.

A democrat and belong to a democrat only platform, sure, but how long do you really think that person's profile would be allowed to exist on that platform if they posted pro-republican material?

It's the most infuriatingly stupid narrative that they've managed to establish

If it's the law now, they would be enforcing it, it doesn't need any changes.

If they want it to be like this, they need to pass a law saying that, no need to change section 230 to allow an avalanche of lawsuits against websites from private individuals and orgs

You're inventing law to fit your feelings. There is absolutely nothing like that in american law and I could care less about Canadian law

Attached: 1602690203227.jpg (612x612, 87.46K)

thats only IF THEY DONT MODERATE IT
230 protects them from no moderation now you fucking tard

repealing section 230 means the owner of Zig Forums can be held liable the next time some jackass posts here about shooting up his school and does it. That's a liability the site owner won't want, this place is already a bandwith hog that doesn't generate revenue and is kept alive mostly on principal. If the owner can get sued for the stupid shit the users decided to post here, this place is fucking toast.

Doesn't matter. Tweets are basis for all news at this point. How many stories are based on tweets made by someone. How many posts on here and other sites are just links to tweets. Government officials give official statements through tweets.

Very nice leaf.

Attached: 1599277987325.gif (250x189, 431.33K)

>Tweets are basis for all news at this point.

this will stop being the case literally the moment trump stops being president, the hyperfocus on twitter is becuase the president is posting nonstop.

Burn them, Burn them all.

Attached: 1591192573260.jpg (1280x720, 44.86K)

they don't need to revoke 230
they just need to assess whether sites are abiding by the terms of 230 and revoking the protections of those that are not acting as a neutral platform, such as twitter and facebook
>you don't qualify, you chose to be a publisher so deal with it

It absolutely is. Think about this for five seconds with your head out of your ass to breathe fresh air and not the swamp shit of your own little mindedness.

Liken big tech platforms to a library for a second.

Libraries don't write the books, they just host the books. So if a book is inflammatory, the library doesn't get sued for having it on the shelves. The library pulls it off the shelf and life goes on. The library didn't write Mein Kampf, so it's not liable for damages if kikes get triggered.

Now if we liken Big Tech to a printing press. If I write a book that says all niggers need to be set on fire to cleanse them of their niggery, the printing press is liable for every book they make for every nigger feeling hurt.

Use some common sense. It's about who wrote the message, who hosted the message, who received the message, and who controls the flow of the message from A to B to C.

just like net neutrality right?

why do you keep saying the same shut redditnigger

Freedom of association IS an American law you simple fuck.

>Babbles about libraries because that fits his feelings narrative

>Completely ignores that we are talking about one specific section of a specific law that has nothing to do with libraries whatsoever and has a specific meaning that doesn't exist outside of it

I have seen this before
Literally worded like that
Fucking bots man

They should have done this shit like 2 years ago. Just make it clear and then you can argue whether its constitutional.

ajit pai is a massive shithead

it might be a bot or a paid shill. they all have the same script

>Cites a part of the bill of rights that relates 100% to the government 0% to private companies because it fits his feelings narrative

That's fine if you think that that should be a law that applies to companies -- it doesn't -- that would require them to pass a law saying that

Nigger AS LONG AS THEY MODERATE THOSE POSTS LIKE THEY ALREADY DO THEY CANT

you can't take them to court and win if they can show they moderated them 230 is what lets you get away WITHOUT MODERATING THEM Zig Forums instead does moderate illegal shit anyways social media moderates every thing they don't like DESPITE OF 230

we already aren't allowed to post illegal shit here or threats of specific violence you retard

Corrupt Media Syndicate
The Democratic party and the national media are organized crime.

So now when a blue check writes blatant libel, you can sue the blue check as well as Twitter and Faceberg.

>little bitch doesn't know what a comparison is

Both me. Spergs post the same thread repeatedly and I'm saving time copying it from the last thread

Attached: 1602721093848.jpg (866x900, 84.9K)

>you can't take them to court and win if they can show they moderated them 230 is what lets you get away WITHOUT MODERATING THEM Zig Forums instead does moderate illegal shit anyways social media moderates every thing they don't like DESPITE OF 230
.. what?

I'm laffin. You don't get the concept at all that just because you feel a law should be one way -- doesn't mean it actually is that way... And doesn't mean that repealing section 230 will make it that way

Absolutely incredible. Have you finished highschool?

Attached: 1602530975833.jpg (400x592, 174.41K)

good luck user, i'm out. one day people will realise they're shooting themselves by supporting this shit.

>stripping big tech of 230 protection is the same thing as repealing section 230
I really hope they aren't paying you for such shitty shilling

If any site us or social media proves they are moderating illegal activity and specific threats of violence WHICH WE DO they can't win a case against them currently 230 allows Zig Forums and social media to do zero moderation but they both do it in their own way regardless the problem is social media does it non neutral Zig Forums does it for illegal shit

We already have adopted to a none 230 compliant forum

Cont..Zig Forums existed before 230

thats not even how it works. why are americans so fucking stupid?