Oh please let section 230 be repealed

Long hair don’t care. I hope all of Reddit, discord, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc all go away. Social media is destroying democratic societies.

I absolutely unironically agree with you. Social media is a fucking cancer, and if I had to lose /r/drama to cure it, that's a price I am willing for you all to pay.

if I have to go back to group texts with my friends fuck

Great question. The biggest problem I have with social media is that it’s so easy to spread disinformation and it’s easier to do in democratic countries because of their free speech laws.

Fucking Twitter stopping me from getting the truth on whales out there. THEY'RE ALL SPY ROBOTS, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Those sites are tools and they are how you use them. If all you're seeing is shit it's because that's what you want 😤

I use Facebook to send baby pictures to my grandma 👵

I use YouTube to learn how to slap bass 🎵

And I use Reit to cyberbully r-slutred kids 💪

Based hodor. But how will I identify you in public after we can't talk on here anymore?

the smell, mostly

Wouldn’t they just host the websites somewhere else

r drama is nuked due to being a hive of potential mass shooters

Someone is underestimating just how lazy and unmotivated we are.

Lol if u think the regular dramaught sub has sufficient will to leave mommy's basement

Thomas dissented with another hot take, that's how you know he was in attendance for oral arguments that day.

how do we know he wasn’t napping for 75% of the sessions, in usual chad fashion?

Can someone gimme a quick rundown on what this Burgerland legal drama is all about and why is it my problem?

Back when the internet was new there were a lot of questions about how free speech applied to the internet and how many legal protections websites could get. Section 230 of the communications decency act made it so that websites couldn’t be held liable for content users posted there with some exceptions (cp, stuff like that).

Fast forward to a few years ago and conservatives keep getting yeeted off of social media because they don’t know how to follow various website TOS. Unable to see the irony in how their constant gutting of regulation lead to corporations gaining the ability to control discourse more and more over the years, conservatives set their sites on Section 230 because they are fucking idiots and think it is the part of the law that lets sites do moderation on their content and nothing else.

Getting rid of Section 230 would, in reality, lead to anything more controversial than arrrrrr aww getting gutted due to internet companies not wanting to get sued because some schizo keeps commenting death threats.

Getting rid of Section 230 would, in reality, lead to anything more controversial than arrrrrr aww getting gutted

As much as I'd dislike that, it might be the best thing US Cons do for humanity.

Why do you hate drama?

I love drama, and without it the tech giants I despise will be at least semi fucked. Is Twitter even profitable? I bet they get a lot less so when it's just boomers sending each other photos of their grandkids.

I'd be fine with boomers and my fellow conservat*rds being Pinochet'd off social media because of "TOS Violations" if the rules were evenly applied. I just don't dig Commander Data, Amazon Basics Lex Luthor, Pan the Goat God, and Steve Huffspaint bouncing my team's spergs off the field for turning on their 24^th chromosome while allowing the other team's spergs to stay, with a little wink and a nod, when they do the same.

Don't get me wrong. I like the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the screaming that it isn't fair, but I'd like to subtract the screaming that it isn't fair part from my righties and add the wailing and gnashing of teeth part to my lefties.

I mean, chapos got the axe. I think they don't do the same to commies and extremely online leftoids because they don't see them as a movement with growth potential. It's mostly teenagers and slacktivists cosplaying as revolutionaries.

Chapos got the axe because not axing them would have made the double-standard a little too obvious, and it there was no harm in doing it precisely because they're a movement of teenagers and slacktivists cosplaying as revolutionaries with no influence or growth potential. Meanwhile, we still have AHS false-flagging other subs with kiddie porn, pedophilia apologists, people cheering the CCP either because of or in spite of their concentration camps and genocide, and all sorts of other objectionable TOS-breaking content from our lefty friends. If the TOS and other rules were evenly applied the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" crowd would be singing the same tune conservat*rds are singing about free expression.

Starts with a bitter base, hints of cope for the body, with a seethe finish. This comment is the drama fine wine

It sounds like my last comment hit a little too close to home for you and you've given up alcohol for copium. Are you insulted because you're an AHS wokie, a kiddie-diddler, a closet commie, or are you something even worse, like a white woman? I'm going to assume it's not that last one because you didn't ask to speak to my manager or claim that your husband is someone important and tell me I'd be sorry.

I'll never give up alcohol. Everything else in your response is big mad.

I'll never give up alcohol.

I can't argue with someone making the rational choices.

The inverse of the daddy defense force isn't chapo commies, it's mainstream dems, AKA 90% of reddit subs.

Fast forward to a few years ago and conservatives keep getting yeeted off of social media because they don’t know how to follow various website TOS

Lol but leftoids won't get yeeted for violating the same ever changing and dubious TOS agreements. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

At least try to pretend to be an enlightened centrist

Leftoids aren’t the ones making a fuss over getting banned for breaking TOS. And I haven’t pretended to be a centrist here in years.

Because they don't get banned. Or when they do they accuse their platform of being fascist/swerf/whatever and then maybe they'll calm down, but only because they're having a diabetes crash.

And then their account gets restored, lol

or maybe the point is Twitter is focussed on USA more, and the left in USA is more about tax the rich or corporations are evil, very few go complete tankie Stalin lover . While on right we have people arguing over things like were Nazis really evil, slavery was really helpful for the blacks, etc

[removed]

The point of my original post is that rightoids are the one complaining about getting jannied and are trying to get the law changed because of that. Its pretty clear that your whatabouting is just here because anytime you see rightoids getting dragged through the mud you reflexively need to make it about leftoids.

Cry about it. Or downvote me in rage some more.

Touch grass

That's rich coming from someone that sits inside all day seething about rightoids.

I planted tulips today, bitch. 🌷🌷🌷

t. Spends all day sitting inside seething about leftoids

n-no u! :'(

conservatives set their sites on Section 230 because they are fucking idiots and think it is the part of the law that lets sites do moderation on their content and nothing else.

Getting rid of Section 230 would, in reality, lead to anything more controversial than arrrrrr aww getting gutted due to internet companies not wanting to get sued because some schizo keeps commenting death threats.

They want to change it so either the site is liable for content or it doesn't moderate anything except illegal content. I don't see any reason to assume that they wouldn't manage to rub their two braincells together and do what they intend, it's not that complicated, phone companies have a similar exception and it works.

The results would be interesting, I suspect that 🏴‍☠️/aww and the like would be hit the hardest actually, due to all the copyright violations and whatnot. Controversial political opinions are not even that toxic in this respect. Another possibility is that twitters and reddits actually have much less interest in employing paid jannies and would be only happy to get legal excuse to ignore wokies.

The results would be interesting

The results would be dogshit. Either companies would elect to lock down posting so hard it will give a whole new definition to the phrase "safe space" or every site on the internet with anonymity would just become voat/8chan.

become 8chan

And that's a good thing.

Wouldn't 0 moderation on the internet lead to the resurfacing of stuff like the jailbait subreddit? Proponents of repealing section 230 never really address that. Granted they are delusional.

Yeah, it'd basically amplify every single bad behavior that can possibly happen online. And that's a good thing.

That's uncharacteriscally accelerationist of you. Sadly, I think no matter what happens we aren't getting the old internet back.

Slashdot was good but got bad bc it got sold to corporate loons

Bringing back the jailbait sub is their endgame, always has been.

I have a silly hope that if the companies willingly bend over to the law because they never liked bending over to fickle SJWs, the 230 replacement would allow having personal censorship, like, if I don't want to read someone's posts I don't have to, similarly let subreddit jannies censor whatever they want but fire the "anti evil operations". If you don't want to read Daddy's tweets, don't fucking subscribe to Daddy, block Daddy, use a blocklist for Daddy supporters, knock yourself out, nothing of that requires preventing the people who do want to read Daddy's tweets from doing so.

Pregnant Anne Frank 💖

Someone get Jeff Mangum on the phone, quick

There's definitely something about social media and the nature of online social interaction that absolutely fucks up public discourse. Even the CCP can't keep it fully under control. I personally attribute it to the fact that a vast majority of online interaction is, at best, verbal. Which effectively neuters about 70% of people's capacity to properly communicate.

I doubt scrapping 230 will help much but the topic bears scrutiny at this point.

Don't you talk about my aww sub like that

I feel like this doom and gloom ignores the practical realities in favor of the status quo. Same thing happened with "net neutrality" which came and went and came back and nothing changed.

There are lots of laws that are essentially unenforceable in their technical language because the scale is just way too vast. Trying to regulate all internet conversation is so impossible that any lawsuit expecting a company to do that would fail just on unreasonableness, even if the law technically demands that.

I mean, ayy lmao.

Thomas might be the greatest dunker on Black Americans.

It's not a hard hoop to shoot in.

People that actually like having the internet around need 230 around, but the ensuing nuclear destruction of everything internet immediately after repeal would be hilarious to watch for like 4 days until we all got bored without the internet again.

People that actually like having the internet

Most people could live without it. The only people who really need it are the degenerates and pedophiles. Without the internet to give them a false sense that there are a lot of people who agree them they'll have to start attempting to fit in with normal people. Boring as that is, it's better than losers wanking to anime girls or deviants thinking it might be OK to be kiddly-diddly.

A section 230 repeal would destroy this website destroy this website and I'm perfectly fine with that.

You had a brainfart/dictation typo.

I meant what I said and said what I meant.

It's been nice knowing you all. We were marked for death the moment Steve "the dumbest fucking person to ever luck into a tech unicorn" Huffman mentioned going public, but this is going to accelerate it. On the plus side, we'll also probably see them yeet the coomers , the druggies, all of the hobby marketplace subs, and the 75% of the radicals who are incapable of properly employing soft language. This is very good for dramacoin, but it does raise a question: If something dramatic happens on the internet, but nobody is around to point and laugh, is it still drama?

That's when we migrate to TheDrama.win which will certainly not become a rightoid infested hellhole

Stop trying to make .win sound like a paradise.

It was just a judge commenting that he wants to review and restrict 230. It wasn't an official anything really.

Oh fuck I got caught not reading the article 😯

Do you have a newsletter or a blog or something? I’d like to subscribe to more sperg outs

[deleted]

Can someone explain the section calling out all the attorneys as being "disbarred from the court?" Does the Supreme Court just dunk on lawyers that piss them off.

[removed]

Anybody telling you that we need 230 or that it would come down on people like us and not the SRDines has fallen for janny lies.

Your mind is diseased. Pick a dandelion and hold it in your mouth until you feel the urge to urinate. Then, swallow the dandelion and urinate on the spot from which it was picked.

Snapshots:

1. Supreme dramanaut Justice Clarence ... - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

twitter retards thinking this concurring opinion discussing other facets of whether the president can block Americans on twitter does something, unsurprising

but here is a fun bit from it

If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude. Historically, at least two legal doctrines limited a company’s right to exclude. First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers. Candeub, Bargaining for Free Speech: Common Carriage, Network Neutrality, and Section 230

HORSE

SHOE

CONFIRMED

Is Thomas /ourguy/?

• Hates social media

• Sexual predator

• Black nationalist

Are you talking about Clarence Thomas or Dave Thomas?