The best move is to control as much of the government as we can and use it to our advantage, i.e. banning pedo books from schools via the school board.
I’m still for burn it all down. The only problem with it is that we have such a broken court system and broken media system that is allowed to lie without impunity that breaking up 230 would just bring us back to legacy media.
Section 230 doesn't need reformed, it needs enforced properly. If Twitter and Facebook and YouTube want to ban people for otherwise completely legal speech with an obvious political bent they are now publishers.
Sites precisely like this. Free speech sites would be more underground. The internet doesn't (to paraphrase one of my fav ever) give 2 solitary fucks what section 230 of your faggot-ass law says.
Repealing section 230 reeked of a trojan horse to me anyway. It would make sites like this more liable, which I assume was the real point.
It's definitely a conundrum we are in:
Can't trust the government to make new laws because they'll add more bullshit
Can't trust the government to repeal old laws because it might open us up to more bullshit even if said law is being exploited.
Baseline, we can't trust the government, better off just refusing to abide any law, telling them to go fuck themselves and work amongst ourselves.
The best move is to control as much of the government as we can and use it to our advantage, i.e. banning pedo books from schools via the school board.
So not kicking them all out, forming an inquisition and after trial burning all those that either are pedos or supported/defended pedos?
Or is your option plan D?
This is KiA2. We have rules here man.
I’m still for burn it all down. The only problem with it is that we have such a broken court system and broken media system that is allowed to lie without impunity that breaking up 230 would just bring us back to legacy media.
Section 230 doesn't need reformed, it needs enforced properly. If Twitter and Facebook and YouTube want to ban people for otherwise completely legal speech with an obvious political bent they are now publishers.
That feels like stretching the law for me. Section 230 was never understood to outlaw moderation. If we'd like the law to, it can change.
That's not "moderating" that's editorializing. Moderation is banning people for stuff like threats and posting porno.
YouTube bans people because they don't like what they say.
There's no way to enforce the difference between those 2 things. I mean you can't ask government to do it. You can lobby YT direclty.
Indeed. Which is why leftists were pushing for it to some degree.
Sites precisely like this. Free speech sites would be more underground. The internet doesn't (to paraphrase one of my fav ever) give 2 solitary fucks what section 230 of your faggot-ass law says.