Some of the worst people in DC have been talking about Section 230 again. Should it be removed? Should it remain the same? Or should something entirely different be done?
pull down to refresh
21 replies \ @kepford OP 16h
The fact that it is coming up now again in DC is interesting to me. I get the sense that nothing is gonna happen that will really hurt the big tech companies. They buy off the right people in both parties. But, it is just a matter of time until using social media requires KYC. That's the sense I get about the politics in play now.
What should happen? I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure what will happen is not gonna be good for liberty or privacy.
reply
50 sats \ 20 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h
You're answering your own question, 230 is the red-herring... look here not there.
RICO is the signal.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
Tell me more about RICO being the signal.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 13h
Its pretty interesting to hear that Trump has declared Antifa a terror organization. On many levels this is interesting.
reply
51 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h
In the context of the factions I've mentioned, they're now playing for keeps, there's no detante like the 90's where everyone gets their back scratched... it's the end of the dollar empire and the money printer can no longer keep the peace.
Social ills created this, and degeneracy turns to crisis over time. The 4th turning is an over-used term these days, but describes the natural cycle pretty aptly. The lesson from it is that social ills exist, you can't just wish a fix upon society. We'll only be fooling ourselves once we feel enlightened. Maybe Jesus is due to return again, but betting on that has only worked once in thousands years, afaik. We need to take our medicine, and that medicine is the strong men creating good times... they have to be strong because few can stomach it, it's ugly business.
So, given that... what does rounding up all the most unhinged rando's achieve? Short-term PR? How do you fix people that think you, my healthy happy wealthy friend, deserve to die just because you're not as miserable as them?
Do you try to address the symptom, or look for the cause, the modern Alinsky's?
Picking some pawns off the chessboard doesn't win the game. You know Alinsky's playbook, do you just ignore the player using it?
Foreign powers, the globalist banks, rogue or aligned billionaires with the resources of a small-medium country, are what enable the NGO-Media-Racket pipeline to enable the Antifas.
RICO may not literally be used, but it signals that its the head of the snake their after. IMO a lot of this falls under MI jurisdiction which would be one explanation for the FBI giving the appearance it's thumb is up its ass, the civilian government was likely sidelined via COG operations in 2020.
reply
0 sats \ 16 replies \ @kepford OP 14h
Yeah, that's my gut feeling. Most of the time what is done in DC is just pandering and show-boating. Its a circus for the entertainment of the nerds that pay attention. I don't really think the DC elite are gonna do anything that hurts these tech companies. But, they will use this as a pretext to get deeper into monitoring and censoring the Internet. Dangerous ideas scare the crap out of them. No matter where they come from.
Here's the thing from my reading of section 230. It already allows platforms to censor and they all do to some extent. We don't need the state to do this. Normies believe they are the government so the government should be a reflection of their desires. Its a bad way to look at it but its the view of most people I have talked to on the subject.
Thing is... the people are choosing to use these platforms. There is a very simple mechanism to stop the "problem" of social media. Don't use it. No one is forcing people to use it. If there truly was a desire for better social media or to censor in a certain direction I think the market would solve this. I think it is easier for people to virtue signal about what they want than really make changes in their behavior. Personal responsibility of both adults and parents of children are the real problem.
The government is not gonna fix this. It doesn't fix problems. It takes credit for things the people / market fix or are in process of fixing. I do believe there are a lot of people that want tools to protect their children but the mindset of the average voter is that the government needs to fix this. Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook could all do better but I don't think it matters ENOUGH to force these things to happen. I think we have a lot of larpers on many fronts. Easier to cry than do something yourself like talk to your kids, don't give them a phone, or put the computer in a central location. It is rare for parents to actually try. We as a society have been trained to be passive and rely on the government as a trusted source and protector. Until a critical mass understand that's a fool's errand it will not get better.
reply
83 sats \ 15 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h
What we "see" in DC is WWE style entertainment, that's a fact sure. Much of it is art of the deal, float something bad to make something less bad acceptable. Outrage about the current thing enables this, only a select few have the full picture and that's by design.
There is no one DC elite and there never was, that's the point of all this, we're watching a civil... or not so civil war... foreign powers are infiltrated because a relatively free society has to let them in to live up to it's own values. These factions are not parties either.
No one wants to hurt the tech companies, but they want leverage over them for their own factional purposes, and yes there is an altruistic faction... and it's probably warranted to be cynical and say its a very minority faction, but even so, smaller factions can align with the lesser evil of other factions.
I don't think the internet can get any more monitored, Facebook itself is a DARPA project and the NSA literally exists to gather signals intelligence.
It's also naive to think they want censorship, they want the opposite, people to feeling comfortable posting their idiotic thoughts and build a dossier on themselves is extremely valuable. This Kirk thing feels like an Operation Canary.
We can bitch about how much dumber than society is than us, but that's the reality and has been for all of time, there will always be a few that can shape the behaviors of the many without the many having any idea that everything they believe has been groomed into them.
reply
17 sats \ 13 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
One reason Trump has been able to dominate. He's a WWE star!
I often piss off my progressive friends when I sum up the whole thing as a struggle for power more than ideological purity. Very few people are trying to figure out a workable solution that would work for a divided culture and until that happens we will have deep divisions at best and violence at worst.
You can't have a massive centralized power structure with 3-5 distinct cultures with fundamental disagreements and expect anything else. Voting doesn't fix this. It can be a reflection but its only the last step.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h
I think there's more overlap than we've seen in our lifetimes which makes it hard to believe. That's the nature of the crisis stage (of the fourth turning), it's a decision point because the options are few, and the factions naturally demarcate along ideological lines.
After the crisis we'll go back to business as usual, good times for awhile that yield to narcisssim, then an unraveling, then another crisis in about 80 years. The cycle is as inevitable as the expansion and contraction of the universe or the change of seasons.
Also why anarchists are delusional narcissists. The state is emergent. (and I say that as an ideological ancap that's simply accepted the world for what it is)
reply
64 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h
Watch this tonight btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxHwyj6Hw0
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 13h
Yeah, I feel that. We can't live in fairy land. Much of this stuff is just a distraction from problems in our own lives and communities that we can affect. There is massive value in understanding how the world works if for no other reason than what to ignore and what to focus on. Most of the news is just noise. Checking the weather is kinda how I view it. In that I mean looking at the clouds, not literally believing what is said.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 12h
I have had the feeling for decades now that there are forces in this world trying to keep men passive and ineffective in their families, and communities. Big man-children that are simply existing to entertain themselves. Not taking responsibility or opening their eyes to the signs of the times.
reply on another page
59 sats \ 8 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h
I think whenever anyone brings up civil war / national divorce, that would be a good time to find common ground on dismantling federal power.
The vitriol is so elevated precisely because one institution, the federal government, has too much power over all of our lives.
How about instead of a violent breakup, we return to what the founders intended, and have a minimally intrusive government?
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford OP 12h
Yeah, my wife was literally saying this the other day.
I really think we are already in civil war, we just haven't accepted it. The US war between the states wasn't a typical civil war. What we are seeing now is more typical. Not sure when historians will peg the start but it might be this year.
Many of us have been talking about this for years and considered stupid for it but peaceful choices to not associate with others is better than killing each other. Trying to force people into one culture is a fools errand and that should be obvious.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 12h
It's WW3, foreign powers just happen to align with some domestic factions. There's always a shadow government.
It's also why notions that we can do without the state are delusional, as I said, the state is emergent. Power vacuums naturally get filled.
view all 6 replies
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
No lies detected
reply
178 sats \ 16 replies \ @Arceris 17h
It is critical to ensuring the maximal reach of free speech. It's not just criminal liability, but groundless defamation and other claims that would see them as just another deep pocket without the immunity.
Issues with the platforms using it as a political hammer to enforce their own proclivities notwithstanding, the market can address that (and, over time, has done so).
reply
11 sats \ 15 replies \ @kepford OP 16h
Why is it critical to free speech? What about things like Nostr? I wonder if relays would fall under 230 protection.
Its also my understanding that section 230 doesn't mean a site owner cannot censor/moderate. They can.
What I wonder is why we even need this. Shouldn't the 1st amendment be enough?
reply
167 sats \ 14 replies \ @Arceris 16h
-
Nostr relays are likely protected now by Sec. 230.
-
Yes, that is correct - and was what my last point was referencing. Sec. 230 allows for moderation (internal censorship), but basically protects against liability for those moderation choices (external censorship). It does become somewhat murky when the moderation becomes so heavy as to look like publication control.
-
1A should be enough, and it may be enough (for now) to protect against state-imposed sanctions. It is not enough to protect against frivolous private actors. Also, I worry about the social consensus on 1A, the left has been antagonistic against it for some time (at least a decade in the recent incarnation). The right had been willing to protect it, then Charlie Kirk got assassinated and now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A. This is an extremely bad situation.
Basically, Sec. 230 is like an anti-censorship filter. It makes external censorship harder, because you can't use the easy tools to change the calculus of the platforms. Removing Sec. 230 is like upping the OP_RETURN size for liability.
reply
11 sats \ 10 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h
Malarky.
Exercising freedom of association and calls to enforce existing law against incitement and racketeering are not tantamount to questioning 1A boundary.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 14h
Not all are, but plenty of them are. When admin people like Bondi are using the phrase "hate speech" I consider that questioning the boundaries of 1A. Now, she got slammed for doing it and back peddled but it happened. Plenty on the right are hardly hard right. They have adopted plenty of left wing ideas because they do not understand the base ideas of natural rights and law.
Freedom of association is not understood by many on the right. Firing people because they have shared views their employers do not like is not a violation of 1A. I think we agree on that. Most of the state actions the left like to take should be social mechanisms. The problem is that both parties have not respected freedom of association.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13h
I remember when Rush Limbaugh's radio show was gaining traction in NYC and nationally, the left wanted to keep him off the air. This was in 1991. 60 minutes had a segment about Rush's growing popularity and of course there was the obligatory left wing talking point: he is spreading hate, therefore the FCC must intervene and take him off the air. I repeat, this was 1991
reply
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 13h
I think you're getting your news from CNN, I watch the psyops pretty close and everything I've seen is setting the stage for RICO, Incitement, and the licensing requirements of the FCC.
None of that equates to you can't call Trump agent-orange on TV.
The Bondi example is a bad one, I assume because it's the only one. If you had a better one, share it. Hers was a short clip going around and she literally pointed to an existing statute.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
Not getting stuff from CNN. The Bondi clip is just an example of how clueless she is. Hate speech is a leftist idea and she was ridiculed by many on the right. Its just wild for her to start using this leftist term while talking about a man that literally opposed this idea.
Not sure what your point is. Trump isn't really an ideological guy but plenty in his admin are and I think the understanding of historic American views on rights is pretty poor. My point is that there are people online identify as Trump supporters that clearly do not understand rights. They often sound like Christian leftists. We have an education problem.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Arceris 14h
I have yet to see anything out there that comes close to incitement under Brandenburg, except for maybe the texts & chats directly with the assassin. And those aren’t at issue.
But I have seen a sitting Senator, long a 1A and free speech champion, express doubt about it.
I agree that all is not lost, as many on the right are still willing to hold people to account on this, but for the first time in years, I’ve had to had discussions about 1A with my normie IRL friends (they’re mostly with me on the right) when they start trying to justify more invasive responses, “because the left did it to us.”
reply
85 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 14h
Incitement is in the statute Bondi referenced when clarifying her inept "hate speech" interview.
Calling people terrorists and other such labels of threat give license to violent "self-defense" where no violence actually existed may end up being tested and probably should be.
The FCC/NBC/ABC framing being about free-speech is gaslighting non-sense, can't believe you'd link to Semafor.
A loss of license for the networks wouldn't be on speech grounds, the narrative has already been seeded about racketeering and election interference given the "free" campaign contributions the left gets by these licensed entities circumventing other established criteria for said license like equal time.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
Most critiques of Trump are terrible. CNN and their ilk are terrible. CNN and the like literally want democrats and they are completely lost on this stuff. They literally just oppose stuff that Trump does because he does it. They are all over the place. I think you may be reading too much into my comments.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 13h
Its just wild how inept many in Trump's admin actually are. I mean, Biden's admin was also like this but it as a different type of the same thing. It really is a reflection of how ignorant the nation is on rights and speech. We have allowed Marxist theories about rights and speech to infect the minds of the population. The historic views of these things are not taught in schools. They haven't been for at least 40 years, probably longer.
The right wing lives on the surface far too much and they lose because they ignore the dumb arguments from the left. They are dumb... but they have to be rhetorically destroyed.
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 13h
I linked to that site because it was the first that I found with that quote from Lummis. There are others. But the rest of that article is crap.
Regarding the Bondi situation, she did cite one statute, then proceeded to totally misconstrue it. But whatever, I'm willing to agree that that's a one off and related to being improperly prepared for that stand up. She has walked it back. But in other contexts she has supported red flag laws & other significant 2A restrictions, so my sense is that her gut instinct was her real feelings, and the walking it back is contrived.
The above link, btw, is to FIRE, where I was a 1A and 4A civil liberties attorney for a time (about 10 years ago now).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5h
Much better article, and Bondi doesn't have a lot of fans already within MAGA, given the lack of arrests... Wouldn't surprise me if she's been set up to fail so they can bring Gaetz back in to the conversation.
I don't think you'll need to come out of retirement anytime soon. That article makes me even more confident that "stochastic terrorism" type stuff will be tested, but not as confident that they'll use every avenue to go for the head of the snake funding the psyops making regular people talk like that.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 16h
Yeah, I agree. Its not surprising though. Most people are extremely ignorant about the base issues at play. Sure, everyone has an opinion but the basis is mostly their tribe and feelings. Few people understand the difference between positive and negative rights for example. Few even understand the context around the founding documents of the US. So we can't really have intelligent conversations with most people. Weaponized ignorance is in play.
You make a good point about protection against frivolous private actors. We don't see this working on places like YouTube where record labels flag content that should be under fair use. That gets into the nonsense of IP law.
I get the feeling that Section 230 isn't the problem or solution but I don't know enough yet to have a strong opinion.
reply
70 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 16h
Agreed, IP law is an entirely separate issue. I generally like the writings of Steven Kinsella. I went to law school to do patent & general IP law, so it has been a longstanding feeling of dissonance that I generally dislike IP law (though I am much more negative toward copyright law than patent, and generally more accepting of TM than either of the others).
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 15h
Kinsella's work red pilled me on IP law
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 17h
All the things it provides protection against should be repealed.
There shouldn’t be criminal punishments for speech.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 16h
My understanding is that it protects the web site owners from lawsuits about content from users. That has always seemed like a tricky line and maybe a false line. The line between the site and the users. The owner is the site owner. In my view as soon as a user posts text or images on a site they do not own that. But this is because I reject the idea of IP altogether. The site owner is the true owner of the server or they are renting the servers.
Been a while since I read the cases against libel and slander laws. I don't recall the arguments against them. I assume you mean completely free speech vs. what is in place now in the US.
reply
55 sats \ 2 replies \ @Kael_Yurei 16h
Section 230 doesn't protect us, it protects the platforms that host us. Our freedom depends on their interests.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 16h
Yeah, I get that perspective. I don't even disagree with it really.
Nostr is a good test case for this though. If the state starts going after platforms for "hate speech" or whatever will people be willing to host relays that relay notes and other stuff? Will plebs be willing to take that risk?
That said, I'm not even sure that section 230 would protect a relay operator in the US.
reply
38 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kael_Yurei 16h
Your reasoning is very solid and worth discussing, as is your observation that it’s no coincidence this issue is resurfacing at this particular moment.
reply