BIG TECH STRIKES!!

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
3,207
559
113
Edmonton

Even Angela Merkel is worried about Trump’s Twitter ban​

Germany’s chancellor has described the censorship of the president as ‘problematic’.

Yes, however, from what I understand, she would prefer that government be the censor instead of private companies. I don't agree but at least there'd be "some?" accountability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
23,875
1,813
113
We are at war. Yes. And I don’t mean the West against the East, against Russia and China, nor the entire world against an invisible corona virus.

No. We, the common people, are at war against an ever more authoritarian and tyrannical elitist Globalist system, reigned by a small group of multi-billionaires, that planned already decades ago to take power over the people, to control them, reduce them to what a minute elite believes is an “adequate number” to inhabit Mother Earth – and to digitize and robotize the rest of the survivors, as a sort of serfs. It’s a combination of George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”.


Welcome to the age of the transhumans. If we allow it.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
23,875
1,813
113
I write HERE.

"They have killed as of yesterday 375,000 Americans..."

Retired General Thomas McInerney has stated to to the world that WW3 has started.

First published at 18:16 UTC on January 14th, 2021.
BITCHUTE: BigTech just purged the president of the United States and untold numbers of creators and users. We are working around the clock to keep up, but could do with extra help. Consider a $5 donation today. Thank you - BitChute.

I guess you would know this already, as would everyone else too, if there was free speech and it would already have been stopped. eh?

Call me when you catch up .

HAVE A NICE DAY.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
23,875
1,813
113
Maybe there is still a shot at this after all...citizen journalists getting it done...

the real 5th estate...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,080
430
83
Washington DC
This is the "Section 230" that has so many people in an uproar:

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(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.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

47 USC sec. 230(c).

This is what the crazy fat kid wants repealed.

Here's the problem. If 230 is repealed, social media sites will be liable as publishers for anything users say, just like a newspaper can be held liable for what its reporters or columnists say, or a TV network can be held liable for what people say on the air.

So, if 230 is repealed, social media sites, threatened with endless liability, will have to either pre-check and censor any user post before allowing it on the site, and/or will have to ban even more users to protect themselves from defamation suits.

Repealing 230 will not lead to "free speech." It will lead to more restrictions on speech by social media sites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

B00Mer

Trump 2024!!!
Sep 6, 2008
37,358
2,672
113
Canada
www.DFWClassifieds.com
So, if 230 is repealed, social media sites, threatened with endless liability, will have to either pre-check and censor any user post before allowing it on the site, and/or will have to ban even more users to protect themselves from defamation suits.

Repealing 230 will not lead to "free speech." It will lead to more restrictions on speech by social media sites.

The problem is... they are already censoring free speech.. Conservative Speech, including President Trump.. oh and yes.. He's still your President. :p:ROFLMAO:

If they want to act like publishers.. then strip section 230 and make them publishers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
96,902
2,831
113
Moccasin Flats
This is the "Section 230" that has so many people in an uproar:

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(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.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) 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; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

47 USC sec. 230(c).

This is what the crazy fat kid wants repealed.

Here's the problem. If 230 is repealed, social media sites will be liable as publishers for anything users say, just like a newspaper can be held liable for what its reporters or columnists say, or a TV network can be held liable for what people say on the air.
Do a quick search using "TV Network found liable" or "FCC finds TV network liable".

It comes up pretty damn lean except for an MSNBC OP-Ed saying the next President should repeal 230.

I'd assume it came up lean because they have insurance/bonds?

Liability waivers? FCC fines?

 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
23,875
1,813
113
Parler CEO John Matze, Family Forced Into Hiding Due to Death Threats, Security Breaches: Filing



Yeah, looks like the " Shut yer mouf", "can't win an argument with facts", globalist, fascist, commie, nazi, chickentard, fkheds are on the loose...

Oh How yah doin' Serryah?

...didn't see you standin' there.