>just can't get behind the current biggest and most widespread one (qanon)
I feel like I'm really missing out here
Q led to very interesting rabbit holes. If any it damaged the pedophile networks more than anything ever in History.
Have any of you read their posts?
The last few years I've barely been on Gab, so I don't know how the Q nonsense has mutated, but I do know that it was junk from the beginning, and tying legitimate revelations and scandals to junk will ultimately never help your cause.
What makes you think that Trump is not in control and doesn't have a master plan?
- https://the-mad-pirate-prints.teemill.com/
Funny, when the SJWs said that 'the Internet as we know it will die if Net Neutrality is repealed ", we laugh in their faces, carry on and eventually proven right.
Guess who are the ones doomsaying the same about CDA 230 and who are the ones laughing?
@TheMadPirate @ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @ethot @mystik @thestrongest https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/16/20808839/beto-orourke-section-230-communications-decency-act-2020-president-democrat-background-checks
its odd its almost like this is an idea of that sjw party, that trump adopted over butt hurt with 0 understanding of the implication… or maybe just maybe its like he is establishment with some pretty makeup to get you retards on board
The funniest thing is that only repealing Section 230 will backfire big time, no matter if Trump or Biden does it.
Regarding the doomsayers, there was an internet before 1996, the blue ribbon campaign and CDA 230 and it was pretty much no different than now.
@mystik @TheMadPirate @ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @ethot @thestrongest the 2k offer that got shot down involved a full repeal
> Does something to get a reaction
> Suckers get caught in the reaction
> Trump does what he initially wanted to do
> Suckers can't roll back now.
Analyze his history. The man is genius.
@mystik @ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @TheMadPirate @ethot @thestrongest heres how trump can still win…
its fucking creepy how delusional you people have become
revoking 230 forces every website to act as a publisher, it doesnt increase free exchange of information
(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
@mystik @ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @TheMadPirate @ethot @thestrongest
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
@ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @TheMadPirate @ethot @mystik @thestrongest a repeal of section 230 would involve mass banning, increase of bots and moderation. The only things that would stay afloat as social media companies would be twitter.
Yep. Section 230 was designed to help smaller forums and people who didn't have the technical abilities to put up their own websites. Repealing it would not be a good thing. In theory it could allow an all or nothing situation: You can either moderate nothing or moderate everything (going back to the CompuServ case), but in reality, I think it will just kill off anything independent (like Fedi).
I did a post on how Section 230 could (and couldn't) be reformed):
https://battlepenguin.com/politics/is-meaningful-section-230-reform-possible/
💀
@djsumdog @ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @TheMadPirate @ethot @mystik @a7 @thestrongest
Independent stuff won't be the first things under threat. Not enough attention on them to really matter or be worth the time to sue. The first companies that will suffer are Twitter, Facebook and Google.
You repeal 230, let the big players suffer a while without it's protection. Wait for a few big lawsuits to happen. When they finally realize how good they had it before, and they start petitioning and lobbying for a new 230, then you can start writing up a new one, but with very strict criteria to qualify under it's protection, and institute a commission that has the sole duty to regularly check any big website for even the smallest infraction and suspend their protection.
Big tech will be so thankful to get away from the lawsuits, that they'll happily comply. As it stands, you have no bargaining chips against them. Doesn't matter how much you reform current 230, instead of complying, they'll use all their resources to continue breaking the law and then weasel their way out of punishment. You first need to teach them a lesson.
