The next development in this weird story of Epik's Twitter account gone rogue is that yesterday the company briefly posted blurred screenshots of a naked 19 y/o man claiming it was the CP used as justification to revoke their domain in December.
The screenshot was taken by a cellphone via a logged in account the day before Epik dropped KF's domain. It also included a blurred copy of the 19 y/o' s ID.
So either Epik is accusing KF of hosting CP with evidence that they themselves posted to Twitter on the company account.
Or they revealed that they dropped KF back in December after receiving a bogus CP complaint and never alerted any authorities.
the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.
if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.
epic cool internet nihilists, that do not care about anything and laugh at everything, suddenly care very much. Too bad being a worthless internet shitstirring fuckwit isn't a transferrable skillset
The next development in this weird story of Epik's Twitter account gone rogue is that yesterday the company briefly posted blurred screenshots of a naked 19 y/o man claiming it was the CP used as justification to revoke their domain in December.
The screenshot was taken by a cellphone via a logged in account the day before Epik dropped KF's domain. It also included a blurred copy of the 19 y/o' s ID.
So either Epik is accusing KF of hosting CP with evidence that they themselves posted to Twitter on the company account.
Or they revealed that they dropped KF back in December after receiving a bogus CP complaint and never alerted any authorities.
why aren't the original internet domains like.com or .net considered under the 1st amendment?
I thought part of the issue was that Obama offshored the administration of the ICANN registry.
has there been legislation or court cases stating they're not? generally curious as to why you think this is the case.
seems obvious that online speech is protected under the 1st amendment, but we live in a clown world, so I don't doubt you.
the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.
if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.
Weren't they given these domains by the government in the first place at least for the original lot?
epic cool internet nihilists, that do not care about anything and laugh at everything, suddenly care very much. Too bad being a worthless internet shitstirring fuckwit isn't a transferrable skillset
The .hk site isn't loading. There's another one that still works but I'm hesitant to post it on a public forum like this.
.net currently redirects to it.