Holy fuck /ourpajeet/ is about to end social media as we know it

Holy fuck /ourpajeet/ is about to end social media as we know it

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-10-15 at 7.06.19 PM.png (1140x1188, 1.2M)

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Attached: EkY4H25WkAAF5UU.jpg (746x513, 158.82K)

if its this bad under republican president and gov't imagine how bad censorship and totalitarian media control will be once democrats take over. not even Zig Forums will survive.

Muta is /ourpajeet/

>mfw

Attached: 1597151818016.png (900x880, 699.25K)

Social media was a mistake.

what is this? Is he trying to give social media the impossible task of moderating all content?

its been long overdue.
LONG overdue.
It was reaching the point where tech companies were dictating the discourse of the entire country.
in a situation where corporate commissars had the ability to eradicate all public debate about anything they wanted, it was becoming a threat to democracy itself.

Attached: daughters_of_triton_by_cigarscigarettes_ddnxcoy-fullview.png (1280x1280, 3.46M)

Zig Forums is social media too

>implying

Wait are you trying to tell me that letting companies monopolise public discourse isn't a great idea?

Attached: 1601501916915.png (960x705, 804.66K)

Zig Forums isn't trying to be a news publisher like facebook and twitter are, so this wouldn't affect it at all.

>Nasdaq drops 20 points tomorrow

Your move, pajeet.

Based on what? Armchair lawyering?

The only place on the internet where far right virgins can band together and cry socially. Post 2014 Zig Forums

>comments on a news thread
ok buddy retard

indeed.
it was fine in the old internet where there were tens of thousands of little fiefdom website dedicated to their own interests and hobbies, like choctaw hatchet throwing, but as soon as the internet became consolidated and corporatized, everything got worse.

god i miss the old internet so much.

Attached: mioree mermaid.png (618x868, 1.09M)

>the old internet where there were tens of thousands of little fiefdom website dedicated to their own interests and hobbies

those were all horrible circlejerks with power tripping mods

And literally nothing has changed about that since then.

>regulate after the socialists rig the elections
oh

>Even now there are special explicit exceptions in section 230 for removing illegal content
Which don't apply to sites like Facebook and Twitter. If those sites don't remove that content, then they'll face fines.

in b4 bullshit claim that 99.999% of CP is passed along through Facebook.

This is identical to when Putin collected all the millionaires in Russia together and calmly told them that they were not to engage in politics because it's not their right, then killed a bunch of journalists.

There is nothing left in this horrid decrepit world that's worth calling a journalist so good riddance.

Good job ruining another thing libtards

best redemption ark since darth vader

Attached: 1602794249872.jpg (514x635, 79.07K)

If twitter and facebook are journalism then section 230 doesn't apply to them in the first place.

at this point with how the US is heading, it seems like he made the best choice.

And I should give a shit about multi billion dollar corporations getting what they deserve because?

Sounds based as fuck

>Do your own part faggots, VPS is like $5 a month.
only so much that can be done especially if you can be banned for having legal content but yet still banned.

>Just make yourself an easy target bro
The absolute state of this """"tech"""" board.

You make no sense sir

I couldn’t give a fuck I’m not an American

t. chillng on my own fediverse server with my bros
tt. says nigger all the time and no one can stop me

Attached: 1574537616975.gif (500x375, 456.81K)

How does this affect anything? Isn't social media already moderated?

I meant to quote the guy you were replying to but because I am tired and a retard I posted without double checking.

Things have a funny way of not working out the way they're usually intended. Zig Forums has mods and jannies that regularly limit "free speech". It's not going to be difficult to bait moderation here into violating 230 in the same ways that Twitter and Facebook will be held to the coals over.
In fact, I'd wager we'll have trolls looking to get this place shutdown as soon as ground rules are laid and enforced against Twitter. And Zig Forums wont have the funds and power to fight back, either... unless something even worse happens, and this website is revealed to actually be a state controlled honeypot.

They are regulating how it can be moderated.

Fucking finally
Nah worst-case scenario is Zig Forums has to move to P2P services

BASED BASED BASED (only time i ever typed these words)

If you flat out repeal Section 230 it kills all user-generated content across the internet. It puts legal liability on the server owner/site owner/whatever for anything _you_, the user posts on their _their_ site. Currently they're immunized.

The correct stance to take is that there should be actual standards, transparency and arbitration for banning users/censoring content. No more of this arbitrary black box shit, when you ban someone you are inviting civil liabilities if you ban someone for a bullshit reason.

Attached: 1577357229751.jpg (273x500, 22.3K)

What you are proposing is that the government moderate the internet directly which will only make it worse over the long run.

>it kills all user-generated content across the internet
I hate you Mutts so god damn much. I hope they don't just reform but actually repeal S230 so we can finally have a Mutt free internet with you troglodytes safe and sound behind your containment firewall.

Yeah but it's just speech. There's no lizard brain identity shit mixed in except on flag and ID boards

it was not in your best interest to stay somewhere you support, but find other communities you support or even easily start your own.

Mother. Fucking. This.

stay somewhere you do not support*

No I'm not. Section 230 is regulation, repealing regulation means less regulation. Companies should absolutely face civil liabilities for damages they cause due to their actions. This is literally the opposite of regulation or government moderation.

By allowing for these civil liabilities they can keep their criminal immunizations under Section 230.

Wrong, you aren't an arbiter of journalism and we'd be much worse off if you were.

Irrelevant, the state choosing journalists is universally bad.

Russia is a shithole and will remain a shithole, you believing propaganda aside.

there's a reason all the services you use are hosted inside the US. Section 230 protections are unique to the US. Hosting outside the US is a massive legal liability.

>It's okay if Trump gets whatever propaganda he wants.

>tech giants getting sued till kingdom come
Lmao... not how any of this works. The little guys like Zig Forums will get sued to kingdom come. The big guys like Facebook eat the fine in a class action, pay out 10 cents per person and keep it moving.

What do you think Reddit is? It is that, but worse since the power tripping mods can lord over multiple communities

>The US government saying more government id the solution to government
Like pottery

You're welcome for the internet, leech.

based. fuck amerifags

Attached: 1571577007091.png (1931x1172, 2.1M)

Would you be willing to sacrifice Zig Forums if meant there would never again be a monstrosity like twitter or tumblr?

No, because I'm not a contrarian.

So basically what people want are libertarian "night watchmen" mods: They do very little except ban explicitly illegal shit like CP and doxxing.

Unfortunately, nobody who wants to be a mod will ever moderate in that way. And Facebook and Twitter are able to claim that their modding practices are immune from scrutiny because of Section 230, and nobody should believe their mods have any bias because they're neutral platforms. They say so themselves.

>unless something even worse happens, and this website is revealed to actually be a state controlled honeypot.
Do you think it's possible for it not to be? I don't think so.

>Russia is a shithole and will remain a shithole
Fuck you. Corruption aside Russia has 10x less violent crime and 8x less rape than USA

No, this is antisocial media.

No. And if anything happened to 4channel I'll go back to TOR and TOR imageboards. Honestly I'm having a hard time remembering why I left. Probably connection and load speeds.

please please just kill social media forever, ill give up Zig Forums or whatever if thats what it takes.

Yeah, can't stand when I speak to US people about Russia. They imagine it to be a dangerous scary place. Blame it on those kids who stabbed the homeless guy with screwdrivers and uploaded the video on the web.

>Russia has 1/20th of the reported crimes than America
Huh.

Also Russia is corruption. It's a shithole thinking it can regain the glory years instead of actually integrating itself with the world around it. Anybody with a brain just leaves the country and anybody who stays dies young from liquor and drugs.

Based Putin, you fucking retards.

Who cares, nigger did jackshit last time.

Attached: 9761891.png (500x567, 143.17K)

If you think a bullshit article about an oh-so-convenient email scandal where the news source won't even share the emails belongs on a neutral forum, then you're a fucking retard.

Hilarious how these morons preach for less government interference with companies and private lives and yet now they're moving to control what content these sites can host.

If I set out to make a site I get to decide what's allowed. So long as I'm not allowing anything illegal, why the fuck should the government get any say in my site? If I want to delete and ban all right wing opinions that's well within my rights.

user, interrupting political lies mid-stroke is illegal now.

Just like all the lies and slanderous articles written about the Trump administration for the last 4 years belong on a neutral platform.

Face it: You have no ability to win an argument so you shut it down.

Typical pampered idiotic first-world take
You have no idea how far removed your quality of life is from the average

This is why platforms need to no longer immune to civil liabilities for their moderation practices. This is how you fix this without destroying 230 completely.

No because you never had to go to the other sites in the first place. Nuking the parts of the internet I like just to spite the parts someone else likes would be retarded. Especially if I know the parts I like do not have the kind of funding or resources that would allow them to defend themselves in a US court case that will aim to deplete it of resources by making the case lengthy and costly as hell, regardless of what is actually legally right.
Like only an actual retarded 17 year old that just found out about politics in 2016 would actually think "social media regulation" is going to mean anything for the companies that actually prop up the stock market and make PAC donations. The "intended target" is never hit with stupid drive by shooting tier legislation like this.

How many of those involve violence?

How is removing regulations and less government interference, more regulation and more government interference? You totally misunderstand the law.

>Just like all the lies and slanderous articles written about the Trump administration for the last 4 years belong on a neutral platform.
Yes, because they're usually true.

>Face it: You have no ability to win an argument so you shut it down.
Said the retard defending Trump in a thread about Trump shutting down speech acting against him.

>FCC will move to regulate social media after censorship outcry
I am complaining that the conservative (supposedly the party of freedoms and liberties) appointed FCC head is creating regulation to control what companies like Twitter and Facebook must allow on their platforms.

Russian male life expectancy: 66

Read Terms of Service BEFORE you buy a VPS.
Buy in country that has more freedom in terms of legality.

>removing regulations
The only regulation he's removing is the one preventing him from creating regulations ad hoc.

Well duh. give me one I can host a imageboard on. Eventually I wanna get into the game. Nothing illegal just basic raids and nigger faggot shit

They're clarifying existing regulation, in effect they want to reduce the scope and ambiguity of the regulation, in effect, reducing regulation.

Everyone knows these companies have overreached and should have fallen outside of Section 230 long ago. Now this is being clarified.

Wrong and cope.

Good! Fucking social media are a bunch of communists in disguise. Fuck jack dorsey!! He should bushed and sent to Guantanamo and water boarded. He’s obvious ccp faggot.

>prohibiting certain speech on a service is an overreach of Section 230
No.

They're acting as publishers, and the FCC agrees.

Yes and seethe.

No, denying speech on a platform is not publishing or acting as publishing.

>Everyone knows these companies have overreached and should have fallen outside of Section 230 long ago
I don't know too much about this, but I feel there needs to be some way to quantify why they "have fallen outside of Section 230" besides just saying they're really big.

Inconsistently engaging in arbitrary censorship without transparency is acting as a publisher, and the FCC agrees.

Zig Forums's /g/ board is a publishing service because you're not allowed to talk about anything not technology related on it. Luddite voices can't be heard. Censorship!

> Muh muh first amendment!

Also:
> Muh, muh private property! First amendment doesn't apply to private property!

Pick one, libniggers

>private companies don't want to host my nazi shit

Zig Forums should absolutely face civil liabilities for the actions of jannies when rules are applied inconsistently or incorrectly.

No, denying speech on a platform is not publishing or acting as publishing. Full stop, you're just whining that it's their values that don't get censored.

Do the research, I don't know your priorities.
Because if you want loli, lolis are illegal in europe but meh in US.
If you want pirated contents - some third world shithole or eastern non-EU europe.

Ever heard about that weird thing called liberty?

Alright you get a refund for services not rendered, don't spend it all in one place.

are you okay?

Hmmm, will the FCC undo my r/Conservative ban?

Yeah, you done whining?

No. He's saying either continue the moderation as they do now and be liable for all content posted ORR stop the political moderation and let users be liable for what they post instead.

Social media is too politically moderated right now and controlled at the behest of one political party's discretion.

>Ajit Pai
A Shit Pie

>I have the right to go into a McDonalds and call everyone a nigger without being banned.

Yes thank you for proving my point. Your American GDP per capita is 6.3x higher and yet a woman is 8x more likely to be raped. But Russia is the shithole?

I'll pick both because private property is private property.

he's saying they're going to have to moderate consistently and transparently, rather than banning people with a "you violated our TOS, no, we won't explain which part or how. no you can't appeal" message IF they want to retain legal immunity for posts on their platforms

Civil liabilities extend far beyond the cost of services. They include losses as a consquence of the action. Fortunately for nu-moot people don't build businesses around Zig Forums shitposting. That isn't the case for FAGMAN companies who can unilaterally destroy companies without justification as it currently stands.

>Inconsistently engaging in arbitrary censorship without transparency
So it would be perfectly fine if Facebook started consistently removing all right wing news/opinions on the site?

So I'm allowed to spray paint my views on your house?

if that was the clear, written stance of their terms of service, then sure

Yes, assuming they codified it in their rules.

He‘s leaking straw again

How so? It would be censorship if McDonalds banned me for saying something. Right?

I'm still having trouble understanding why the distinction between a section 230 protected entity and a publisher is them arbitrarily removing posts.
To me a publisher is something that itself pushes news and information out, not just hosts content from elsewhere.

How many times are they going to try it? socmed has too much power

Russia just doesn't report crimes, user. Pretty sure age people die at is better reported.

Nice stat with the GDP, it doesn't mean you die young or actually affect rape stats in the slightest for most any country so long as domestic purchasing power is going well, which it functionally is.

>remove NN because fuck government regulation
>propose government regulation of social media
???

I forgot to mention that political affiliation is considered a protected class in California, so it'd probably be illegal under anti-discrimination laws. But that's a different issue.

>not even Zig Forums will survive.
good, thank fuck.

isn't that just for employment?
And if I take that at face value, that means if I start a site to discuss left wing news/policies and I remove someone's right wing post because it's off topic I've infringed the law? Doesn't sound right to me.

No

Because there's no real abuse without NN. Meanwhile social media giants abuse their power and censor other media outlets for which they do not agree with. FCC ruled that social media has free speech, but they don't have immunity when they censor other media outlets.

>isn't that just for employment?
bake the cake (reminder that bespoke comissioned cakes are artistic expression)

why not? Why can't I force you to host my personal views on your property? CENSORSHIP

The problem with demanding that "everything needs to be clear and transparent" is that this situation is the literal opposite. Facebook cannot prove that this obvious political stunt is an obvious political stunt, but that doesn't change the fact that they remove obvious political stunts from their website all the time and should remove them. You can't ToS that, it's just their judgment and that's a fine line to draw things at. There's no good reason for this article to be being passed around except bad politics.

Sorry if you're a butthurt Trump supporter.

a platform is defined as a service which only removes content which directly negatively impacts the functioning of that service - legally or technically.
a publisher is defined as a service which takes editorial license, meaning that it picks and chooses what it hosts beyond just keeping things running - such as removing certain stances like "fuck intel amd 4 lyfe."
arbitrary removal is considered picking and choosing what they post. if they don't remove something as a publisher, they give it their implicit approval. that being said, there would still be some protection - if no reports were filed regarding that content, they could reasonably argue that they were not aware of it and that they should not be held liable. happens all the time in other, non-230 cases

Don't just rely on ToS and geopolitics. Always assume your hosting provider is malicious/compromised and act accordingly if you're doing illegal shit.

>it doesn't mean you die young
It does statistically. There's a strong direct correlation between per-capita GDP and life expectancy.

>or actually affect rape stats in the slightest
This is true. Apparently Americans are fundamentally violent rapists and their comfort and wealth does little to curb their behavior.

>And if I take that at face value, that means if I start a site to discuss left wing news/policies and I remove someone's right wing post because it's off topic I've infringed the law?
if your TOS directly claim you will remove right wing posts, and your business entity doesn't host or register itself in california, you don't need to pay any attention to their laws

I see, thanks for the explanation, actually makes a lot of sense. My only question then is if removal of content for business reasons (for example if facebook thinks hosting more extreme political opinions will worsen their reputation leading to lower users/engagement numbers and fewer investors) would place the company into publisher category or not.

>a publisher is defined as a service which takes editorial license, meaning that it picks and chooses what it hosts beyond just keeping things running - such as removing certain stances like "fuck intel amd 4 lyfe."

Not a good definition. I could run a block posting nothing but "fuck intel amd 4 lyfe" by only linking articles that make AMD look good and that wouldn't make me a publisher. The only thing I'm """publishing""" is links. That is, without question a service, because the only thing I'm doing is providing links for amdrones to consume.

*could run a blog

>killed net Neutrality
Kill yourself. We have throttled internet because of that fucking cocksucker.

>they're just going to guess and decide what the truth is without basis or any real terms backing them up
sounds like a publisher to me

Facebook is not an arbiter of truth. Twitter isn't an arbiter of truth. Big social media companies cannot and should never be allowed to control/censor speech.

Then you're wrong.
>Facebook is not an arbiter of truth.
Irrelevant. There is literally no reason anybody needs to be the arbiter of truth in order to legitimately get to censor things on their own website.

>Then you're wrong.
The FCC disagrees

Indeed

Attached: muscular-young-construction-worker-stock-photo__k18967777.jpg (345x470, 19.29K)

They're also wrong, and they'll also lose in court.

>We have throttled internet
who's "we"

Good. social media giants are run by leftist faggots who try to have it both ways of being a publisher and a platform. Twitter for example curates trends and editorializes shit on the exploration page where they act like a publisher. Facebook takes the liberty of blocking certain links like the nypost bombshell even blocking you from sharing it your friends in private messages.

Attached: Screenshot_20201015-012751_Chrome.jpg (1440x2960, 916.36K)

US government is mandated by the constitution to keep free speech in public space/platforms. Giant social media companies are public platforms. Thus the social media corporates will rightfully be stopped from censoring political speech.

the government should not be able to control speech in any capacity either.

Cope, the book burning stasi are going down :^)

good. fuck the kikes that run facebook / twitter.

Wrong. The US government is mandated by the constitution to not censor the press. Anybody else can censor the press all they like.

/g/

They're not though, they're controlling what's posted on their platform. If I'm running the website, why shouldn't I be allowed to dictate what people post on that site?
It'd be a different story if it was the government forcing me to remove remove stuff (barring illegal content).

The government is not the one controlling the speech. Its the social media controlling the speech and the government trying to stop them from censoring.

>then killed a bunch of journalists.
Based!

>keep free speech in public space/platforms. Giant social media companies are public platforms.
Then why am I banned from McDonalds for calling everyone a nigger?

>My only question then is if removal of content for business reasons (for example if facebook thinks hosting more extreme political opinions will worsen their reputation leading to lower users/engagement numbers and fewer investors) would place the company into publisher category or not.
that's going to be a big legal fight and we're just going to have to wait for it to run through the courts.

>You can't ToS that, it's just their judgment and that's a fine line to draw things at.
you can TOS that with enough legalese and enough lawyers (faceberg has plenty of lawyers), or you can allow it to remain and sidestep the whole issue. when someone starts removing opinions for their content, they begin implicitly agreeing with what they are aware of which remains, and that implicit agreement can be used to show liability

Social media is made up of companies. No company is obligated to enforce freedom of speech.
It is not the government's place to tell companies what they are and are not allowed to host.

Which is illegal.

The government isn't trying to stop them "from censoring", by the way. Trump is ordering the government to force social media to not censor Trump, despite that being social media's right.

>Anybody else can censor the press all they like.
I'll be arrested if I set up an RF jammer.

Companies are not entitled to section 230 protection.

The government isn't obligated to give them special status if they aren't willing to abide by the rules in sect 230.

They're private companies and their platforms are private property ergo they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Deal with it you impoverished pinko faggot. If you don't like it hippity hoppity the fuck off their private property or better yet make your own company. Oh what's that? You're a lazy retarded faggot who refuses to pull himself up by the boot strap and needs daddy government to force private individuals to put up with you? Okay got it. You're a retarded Socialist faggot.

>you can TOS that with enough legalese and enough lawyers
No you can't.
>when someone starts removing opinions for their content, they begin implicitly agreeing with what they are aware of which remains
Not an argument. The issue is that it is and should be Facebook's prerogative concerning what is on their website. What they agree with doesn't matter.

Yes, they can do whatever they want. They can also get sued for it, at least they can once section 230 is clarified :^)

google is a government subsidiary, they are allowed to have as many failed projects as they want without going bankrupt

>its illegal to regulate companies
No. Corporate regulation is a thing in EVERY country. Every country on earth regulates corporations. Its literally the government's job to regulate the companies.

The government is trying to stop the censorship by social media companies. Regardless of whose speech, free speech is afforded to everyone. Sure your liberal brain is telling you "its just trumptards racist mysoginistic conspiracy terrorists" but if the tables are turned, you'd cry about it. And the tables turn every 20 years. You're just blinded by political agenda that you can't even see what's happening underneath the corporate abuse of power.

Because you're not trying to censor, you're trying to drown out. This is the difference between banning yellow cars for being "too gawdy and ugly, censor that form of expression", and demolishing all the roads in town.

They don't owe you anything. It's similar to "net neutrality" these are private entities and because a company is a private individual you're trying to censor THEIR free speech by telling them what to do. Again if you dont like it start up your own company you pinko scum.

>The issue is that it is and should be Facebook's prerogative concerning what is on their website. What they agree with doesn't matter.
that isn't what is being argued, what is being argued is at what point facebook's moderation of what is and isn't on their website puts them on the same legal footing as, say, a call-in radio show or a television program in terms of civil and criminal liability

That's funny, I have much faster internet than I did 4 years ago at a cheaper price.

>Law says we don't have to regulate thing, getting rid of law means less regulation!
Why are conservatives so fucking retarded?

We want less governance, not more. We don't want corporations to censor us instead of government.

>my free speech to censor other's speech
LOL

>The government is trying to stop the censorship by social media companies
They're trying to enforce Trump's newest propaganda because he's losing the election.

And no, the government cannot regulate censorship.

>getting rid of law means less regulation!
yes, also im not conservative you retard

>I'll be arrested if I set up an RF jammer.
Interfering with public airwaves. You also need a license to use most frequencies.

>not even Zig Forums will survive
WTF I LOVE DEMOTARDS NOW

>that isn't what is being argued
Yes it is, because the argument is literally "just start moderating openly and transparently". Don't reply to me if you aren't talking about only this, you're a retard who's trying to change the subject.

hes a colossal faggot, but i think even he knows social media is a huge problem for political stability

The government is trying to stop censorship, not regulate it.

>the government cannot regulate censorship.
The government is doing no such thing. They're clarifying immunizations given to internet platforms, and what it means to be a platformer versus a publisher.

The only thing this does is create civil legal liabilities.

Reading the mental gymnastics that lefties are pulling to say that it's somehow anti free market to remove special government protections from companies (that they opted into) is astounding.

>not even Zig Forums will survive.
Wrong. In this specific instance, the problem is facebook/twitter/etc censoring journalists/news media.

No, and no.

>They're trying to enforce Trump's newest propaganda because he's losing the election.
Yes.

>Yes it is, because the argument is literally "just start moderating openly and transparently"
giving reasons for bans other than a totally uninformative "breaks TOS" is not transparent, but is standard practice
using two different standards for what speech should be considered "hate speech" (black ppl are bad = hate speech; white people are bad = good to go) is not open or transparent moderation when the only definition is "hate speech is something that attacks on basis of race, blah blah blah"

Yep. Its cancerous sometimes. Reddit niggers are floating on Zig Forums.

They're trying to take control of some websites away from the owners of those sites and redirect to themselves, Trump specifically.

>bu bu but civil law
So some Trump lackey will be the one suing, got it.

But my company is an RF jamming company that I operate on my private property. I can do literally whatever I want.

take your meds schizo

>TOR imageboards
What are those like? Are they full of CP? I've been avoiding Zeronet because I'm afraid I'll have a repeat of going to world cup game threads on /sp/

Attached: 1597417456361.jpg (719x699, 59.56K)

>Its about Trump
I hate Trump so much that I'll let corporates censor me.

then as long as your jammers never affect public airwaves, and only affect your private airwaves, you have nothing to worry about

you mean the fact that there's evidence Biden used his connections as vice president to do business deals with Ukraine and pocketed the money, essentially perjuring himself when he said he didn't?

Is that really propaganda if it's a fact that's been confirmed by the house?

I lol'd

No, dumbass, tons of shit on Zig Forums wouldn't pass scrutiny if blocking a manufactured election scandal won't fly on Facebook.

Remember the Sarah Palin email scandal on Zig Forums?

How is this going to help with my r/Conservative ban?

zeronet is retard-tier, freenet is the better protocol as it encrypts all hosted data

It doesn't matter if its propaganda or not. Jesus Christ. Its about the giant corporations controlling our thoughts.

We'll just delete Zig Forums. Who gives a fuck?

>giving reasons for bans other than a totally uninformative "breaks TOS" is not transparent, but is standard practice
Congratulations, you missed the point entirely.

The real point is that Facebook owes you exactly zero explanation for why you were censored. Demanding the ToS handle this is stupid, this isn't a business contract.

zeronet is a honeypot by design.
>forced js to even see sites, let alone do things like post
>must use a same ID for all your posts across any sites, so someone who browses both zchan and fazebook and sees your fazebook post can track all your zchan posts or viceversa
>no input sanitation possible, users can change the contents of their posts at any time

>massive corporations
>leftist
Oh yeah I'm sure they're real Marxists and all.

Has it seriously never occurred to you fucking morons that you keep getting kicked out of literally every single place you set foot on is because you're obnoxious retarded faggots who are bad for business and that's why nobody wants you there? This is particularly true of places like social media that rely on add revenue.

It's like you dumb faggots decide to march into a restaurant screaming NIGGER and sig heiling then wonder why the private owner is pissed off and has you forcibly removed by his bouncers. You're getting kicked out because you're obnoxious faggots who're actively damaging their private business' revenues.

>The real point is that Facebook owes you exactly zero explanation for why you were censored
This is the least invasive way to fix section 230, actually.

>Demanding the ToS handle this is stupid, this isn't a business contract.
lol it literally is though

>No, stop paying attention to the fact that it's about Trump!

You wouldn't need moderation if you took the time to set up filters.

Ha. Haha.
Zig Forums is fucking sharkbait.

>Oh what's that? You're a lazy retarded faggot who refuses to pull himself up by the boot strap and needs daddy government to force private individuals to put up with you? Okay got it. You're a retarded Socialist faggot.

Something eating you? That sounds oddly specific.

Regardless Im glad you believe they can do whatever they want and thus can be also sued for whatever as they lose the open platform protections section 230 gives them.

>The real point is that Facebook owes you exactly zero explanation for why you were censored
they do if they want special legal protections under an act which lists "open and transparent" moderation as a prerequisite to that legal protection

honestly we can do away with Zig Forums. most of those "people" post on reddit anyway. all the bases posters migrated over to 4channel a long time ago

Yeah and it's pretty fucking dystopian that we can't talk on the internet about a presidential nominee committing crimes because twitter and facebook are backing him.

It literally is not. You getting a free subscription is not a contract, you didn't sign anything. They made a website and you used it. If anything at all more serious than that takes place, then Facebook legally isn't responsible, like they would be if you two signed an actual contract.

n!ggar

Most of our freedoms have been eroded by Republicans, starting with the Patriot Act.

Attached: 1602656563858.jpg (600x423, 248.05K)

kek you literally have to agree to the contract to sign up and they legally have to inform you of the contract changes and they tell you to stop using the service if you don't agree with the changes. it's literally and literal contract literally.

>ride ending

Never gonna happen because the site has been owned by the feds since 2010 and Zig Forumstards are a bunch of massively pro establishment cucks and useful idiots who are too stupid to understand that. The FBI is and always has been a right wing institution. Poltards are pro cop, pro corporate cucks who act like they're so edgy for screaming about Jews while backing the most radically pro Zionist they possibly can find who also happens to be massively pro establishment for the only one that matters which is the corporations, Saudis, and Israel, and the military and cops who support and protect them.

Companies were never meant to have more control over global discourse than a tyrannical government has over its own people. Tech giants like Facebook and Twitter are no longer private companies, they're economic state actors. Section 230 should be revoked for them (and only them) and there's no legitimate argument against it.

>kek you literally have to agree to the contract to sign up
A bot can do this. EULAs are not contracts, by the way.

literally wrong, literally.

>Hilarious how these morons preach for less government interference with companies and private lives and yet now they're moving to control what content these sites can host.
Because in this situation the benefits/drawbacks are completely inverted?

>If I set out to make a site I get to decide what's allowed.
Great, you're now liable for anything posted there, every bit of CP, every horsefucking, etc.

>So long as I'm not allowing anything illegal, why the fuck should the government get any say in my site?
Dunno man, why would anyone take issue with mass censorship of a news story that would harm a preferred candidate?
Bloody mystery.

>f I want to delete and ban all right wing opinions that's well within my rights.
And guess what, nobody would fucking use your gay site since you're a power tripping faggot with no established userbase.

Also this

No it isn't, that's just convenient to have during a lawsuit. Being able to explain yourself to a judge is the only prerequisite.

Absolutely based pajeet

>And guess what, nobody would fucking use your gay site since you're a power tripping faggot with no established userbase.
hilarious that you say this in a thread talking about twitter and facebook banning right wing opinions.

>with no established userbase.

How stupid do you need to be to support this on Zig Forums of all places. Have you never seen the type of content posted here before? Or do you not understand it's implications? I'm especially confused as to why /g/ would be supporting this, considering the general stance of user freedom.

>It's my opinion that these emails exist
Not how it works.

That explains why I didn't see any contraband when I tried it out some time ago

Attached: file.png (720x431, 46.68K)

It's literally always been like this you retard. That's what corporate power ultimately is. That's why the left despises neoliberalism.

Ironically, Section 230 were made so it could provide safe havens for political speech on the internet. The companies nowadays are now using it against the intended use and censor political speech. So its to be expected that they'll reclarify the wordings.

as it should be. if you make the site, moderate it

This, EULA are not notarized.

Yes, Facebook has an established userbase.
You don't.
Do you even understand what you're shitposting about?

Seeing this shithole burn down would be the greatest day of our lives. The redditors will all fuck off while the meat of the site slowly regroups underground where we belong

But how would we regroup??

it either shuts down a diseased imageboard, or it forces moderation to be far less restrictive and far more consistent
no more free passes for tranny janny either way

No it wasn't, it was and is intended to protect companies from unprotected speech (eg libel) being posted on their services.

You don't get it. That speech in general is protected was already a given. Nothing on that front changed.

>Why don't you oppose this thing that fucks over corporations and stops them from censoring you?
>Don't you realize this would kill Zig Forums!!!!!!!
Thank fucking god.

>how facebook censors right wing opinions
and twitter, and alphabet, and probably microsoft

Mods are dumb niggers. This is /g/ tech related, not /politically incorrect/.

>tech thread moved to Zig Forums
sasuga jannies

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

WRONG

Welp nice knowing all you guys, no way this place survives that.

Probably first through some of the boards on tOR, but I'm not sure

Also I've never seen what happens when a thread gets moved to a board that has flags, neat to see everyone having French flags with question marks

Oy vey