all 12 comments

[–]BEB 24 insightful - 3 fun24 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Is this the same issue that Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy (who has the wonderful web publication FEMINIST CURRENT - CHECK IT OUT!) sued Twitter over after getting kicked off? Murphy got kicked off right after "mis-gendering" ol' Wax My Balls.

Here are all the details - can someone smarter than me (most everyone) figure out if what the Trump administration is proposing would keep Twitter from banning GC feminists for stating biological truths?

[–]fuckingsealions 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok, I do not have time to research this atm, but there seems to be nuance to what this might affect. Comment from thread:

Channelbot_Reborn 4h You need to know what you're signing before you do it.

The instructions provided are for leaving comments in favor of repealing Section 230. This isn't about Reddit specifically.

Section 230 protects websites from being held accountable for content their users upload. Without this protection, sites like 4chan basically can't function. Any malicious party could find a way to jam child porn through and get any site taken down.

Reddit is a shithole, but repealing section 230 would be a death blow to basically any platform that allows users to upload their own content, except ones run by companies with billions in the bank. Repealing 230 would kill competition for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and so on.

Reddit has serious internal issues but this isn't the solution.

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

fyi the reply by Dookiespeaks' argues against that interpretation:

"Section 230 protects websites from being held accountable for content their users upload. Without this protection, sites like 4chan basically can't function. Any malicious party could find a way to jam child porn through and get any site taken down.

The recent executive order said this:

When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

Subparagraph (c)(2)(A) says this: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

So the executive order is meant to remove the protections of (c)(2)(A) from sites that edit their content beyond what is outlined in that subparagraph. "Regular" censorship of illegal and obscene materials is not part of that. You can't get a website banned with CP since that would still be protected by (c)(2)(A), only censorship beyond that would be affected. The executive order is not trying to get rid of the whole section, just remove the protections of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) from websites that use it to shut out opinions they don't like.

Put simply: It would make a website like Twitter or Reddit (unless they drastically change their censorship policies) as responsible for their content as CNN is responsible for their comments section (if they still have them lol). CNN can still delete illegal materials under (c)(2)(A).

4chan would not be affected by this since they don't delete opinions they don't like, they only delete illegal materials."

Further down the thread, Dookiespeaks states:

"... If you read the executive order, it's not trying to get rid of Section 230, it's just trying to remove the protections that allow websites to delete illegal and harassing material from websites that delete any and all opinions they don't like while pretending it's part of the same protection. Websites that simply delete illegal materials (like 4chan) would still be protected by section 230. I replied to the comment directly quoting the relevant subparagraph of Section 230 as well as the executive order.""

[–]fuckingsealions 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cool cool, I just wanted to be sure there were no "gotchas."

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is about Section 230.

I've also heard the terms "platform" (neutral) vs. "publisher" (curated/edited) used more commonly. I'm curious, where does your use of platform to mean "Wall Street Journal" come from?

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just copied and pasted the OP so unable to answer that

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Just a heads up. Someone else offered the following opinion casting doubt on the advisability of such a change, a change that might negatively impact saidit as well as reddit. I'm not a lawyer so hard to know who is right:

"...The principle that sites aggregating user-published content are not directly liable for that content is foundational to their very existence. It means that, apart from their duties to remove illegal content and comply with DMCA requests, they don't have to proactively pass every single post through a censor to avoid getting sued for defamation, copyright infringement, negligence, aiding and abetting whatever might be implicated in that content, etc. The only way to realistically do that at scale would be algorithmically filtering all incoming content, which obviously reduces freedom of expression. And for upstart sites that can't afford that kind of monitoring, or don't want to, all it takes is users pissing off the wrong person to put the whole operation in jeopardy. Today, if you don't like how Twitter/Reddit/YouTube is running things, you can hop over to new competitors like Gab/Ruqqus/BitChute. Without section 230 those alternatives might not even be able to get started — and imagine if the larger services decided to flex their litigious muscles against the user content on them.

EFF has a list of key cases involving Section 230 if you're interested in seeing what it protects websites from. Some of the plaintiffs do have good cause, but others are but the key is that the website is protected from claims that are really the fault of the provider of the offending content.

[–]BEB 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I used to love EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation that aims to protect electronic privacy), because, well before trans activist threats, electronic privacy was one of my issues.

However, after seeing how much Big Tech is behind trans demands activism, and how Trans, Inc., has managed to buy the ACLU and the National Organization for Women, etc., and ad nauseam, I don't know if EFF has been bought too.

That's one of the many horrible things about Trans, Inc. - it has bought so many formerly relatively-trustworthy organizations and media outlets (Democracy Now! Scientific American, National Geographic, NBC, Conde Nast, the NEW YORK TIMES, HEALTHLINE, NATURE...) that now one doesn't know who to trust.

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I know exactly how you feel. I feel exactly the same. The infiltration and the influence they hold in those organisations is frankly ominous. For the life of me I can't understand why people like Amy Goodman have gone along with this when there is so much big money behind this. The money interests alone should make people pause and ask questions.

[–]BEB 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know! After the infamous NATURE "Sex is a Spectrum" article I don't know whether to believe NATURE when I read COVID articles. All these formerly respected science publications have lost all credibility by jumping on the trans train.

RE Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!

I've heard from people who work at Pacifica (the "independent" radio network that airs Democracy Now!) that Amy Goodman is a "bare-knuckled fighter" who basically used Pacifica to develop and launch Democracy Now! while managing to retain all rights to the show, and now Pacifica owes Democracy Now! and Goodman millions that it's struggling to repay. The network is struggling to remain on air, while Goodman rakes in $$$.

So, no, Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! being a shill for Trans, Inc., is no surprise to me.

But honestly, I have never seen anything like the astroturfing the trans lobby has managed to achieve in terms of US media. I can't think of one mainstream outlet that's broken ranks...

[–]lairacunda 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Amy Goodman know how to pick her battles. At the end of the day she's a chickenshit when it comes to trans. It's not possible that she doesn't understand the issues or the implications. She knows that if she ever pronounced herself publicly as GC, if indeed she is, she would be deluged with an onslaught of hate, she would be deplatformed and would lose funding, position and status. She would probably lose her pension as well since KPFA is basically some type of collective. In short her entire community would turn against her. I held hope that she's biding her time but now I'm not so sure. There would have to be a massive change of opinion on the so-called left for AG to actually do any real reporting on trans.

[–]yayblueberries 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would be interesting to figure out how this pertains to Facebook which is now auto-banning content it doesn't like, basically anything that's not the brainwashed views of liberals.