TXSG8R

Oh, question and answer period from the crowd. Absolute must watch.

Lin Wood: I dont want your money Also Lin Wood: Go to my website and give my organization money.

There it is. Sydney Powell and Mike Flynn in 2024. Fight like a Flynn!

Lin Wood doubled down and said if Perdue and Loeffler don't demand that Kemp call a special session, to not vote for them. They really may drive enough R voters away from voting that may give both seats to the Dems.

Lin Wood missed his calling as a megachurch preacher.

So now all the evidence is being gathered to submit to the DoJ?

I've heard her use the coin flip analogy before. Why does she keep equating votes to randomness? If you go to a predominantly red or blue city or county, the numbers will be wildly skewed one way or the other.

Ok, had to laugh at this one. Someone thought this was super clever.

JFC, lemmings doesn't even begin to describe this shit. You can get these rubes to chant lock him/her up over anything.

Is it normal for attorneys to roll their freshly pardoned clients into their current grifts?

Logged into the YouTube stream, the comments are all about squashing big tech because their stream sucks. Irony is dead.

Providers are stuck in a no-win situation. By moderating content and removing dangerous bullshit, they run afoul of the right screaming they are censoring and should be held to media/journalism standards. If they take a hands off approach to stay within the rails of 230, the left screams they aren’t doing enough to prevent dangerous bullshit from being posted. A solution is needed, but I think it will be more politically slanted which won’t be helpful to the public.

Absolutely, but the former is the biggest problem with most solutions being advocated. Lets just get it out in the open. Any solution requiring lack of anonymity isn't a solution. Its all but impossible to implement with the way the internet is structured in our country (IE, open). Robocalls are a great example. Universally loathed, all but impossible to stop. Why? Because its easy to spoof packets to change who the sender is. You cant restrict sending to localities because people don't stay in one place with their phones. If we restricted all 512 calls to towers in the 512 area code, Twicehorn wouldn't be able to call home when he is traveling to New York. Same issues with any packets on the internet. We cant truly nail down people to IP addresses. The lazy and uninformed can be corralled that way (Sydney's 80% example), but the worst actors wouldnt, and the worst actors are the problem.

That’s a pretty big simplification of the issue. Robbing banks is illegal, and requires some risk to the robber to pull off. Johnny internet sitting in Russia carries zero risk to join surly and stir up shit. Even if you could find him, who gets in trouble, surly, or Johnny internet for posting libel? Freedom of speech is a bitch, but we carry the good with the bad. This is a very similar problem. edit: mixed up providers in an example.

Removing anonymity on the internet is all but impossible for those willing to avoid it. You may comply, but the assholes that want to cause trouble can circumvent almost everything you throw at them. I also think you are vastly underselling the amount of public assholery that goes on. Think of the amount of Congress people that throw absolute shit bombs out on a daily basis. We know who they are. We shout a lot about it. They keep doing it. edit: the fairness doctrine applies to media/journalists. That’s the issue FB, Twitter, etc is trying to avoid being tied to with trying to avoid moderation in the first place. That’s why crazy has happened as much as it has on those platforms. If they get flipped to being media and not a content provider, they have to moderate everything, and those models break completely. Has anyone invoked slippery slope yet?

Short of having in person registration, enforcing lack of anonymity will be extremely difficult. That’s why the legal burden will always fall to the content providers, and why 230 is so important.

Will said registration require an in-person check in to validate documentation or will I be transmitting all of this over the internet? You see the problem there, right?

And it would be equally abused. Dont like content? Fire off a takedown notice regardless of its legality. Content provider pulls it for review, troll wins.

I think something is fucky, this was a reply in the section 230 thread?

Is there a 5 second rule for libel anywhere else? Even if that was a compromise to repealing 230, the burden is still on the content provider, not the owner of the content. If I'm being vindictive and post something illegal on a sock, I'm not taking it down. The goal is to make surly/Immamac deal with the pain.. If Immamac locks the website down to insiders only to reduce the chances of socks posting illegal shit, its a partial victory for my trolling. Surly had to restrict access out of fear of liability for bullshit. Amplify that by millions for the big platforms like twitter, FB, etc. Think of all the hashtag amplification or botting that drives up random bullshit and now weaponize it by spamming illegal stuff that forces those platforms to lock completely down. Craigslist, Ebay, Etsy? Same problem.

Ill let you expand on that, because outside of a pointless threat, I don't get it. 230 makes most of what we consider the goods parts of the internet work for lack of a better term. If content providers (IE every website and app) have to consider liability for everything that's on it, almost all real-time content goes dark. No one wants to stick their neck out for rando's posting something. A newspaper comment section isn't very enjoyable, and that is what the internet becomes without 230. Post, moderator review, published post, reply, moderator review, published reply.

Yes, but its much easier to shut down your website than find random internet guy posting through a VPN. Like Twicehorn said, if you accept random people, you run the risk of being abused. If you decide to restrict access, you've already reduced content. Are you going to require SSN, DLs, some other kind of identifier that someone smart can still work around? The website or app is a fixed target. Posters will always be harder to nail down, so the former will always bear the brunt of any legal action without 230 protections. Ant is dead on with the comparison to DCMA abuse. The operator will bear the brunt of any legal actions. Step one will be serving the site with a violation notice, then requesting the site turn over the offender's information. Cant find johnny internets because he fed you a fake SSN, DL, whatever? Too bad, I guess Surly gets to eat the legal problems. Repealing 230 will have people screaming that leopards ate their face once they realize the full impacts of that decision.

If I come in and post something illegal, you would be liable without 230 protections. It opens the door to a new form of DDOS through simple posts. Keep spamming illegal shit, you have to stop real time posts and moderate all content, your shit is broken. There are certainly negative effects with 230, just like there are negative effects to freedom of speech. The right wants to repeal 230 because they think it will help them avoid moderation and/or allow them to use their favorite tool, litigation, to strong arm content providers. Its a nuclear option that will lead to most real-time content being deemed not worth the trouble by most operators.

Yea, you’d be wrong. Losing 230 would require all content to be moderated, which would break most content oriented sites and apps. Twitter can’t hire enough people to moderate the content on it, so you wouldn’t get a “cleaner” Twitter like you are expecting, you would likely lose Twitter completely. Surly would no longer be a real time thing, because mods would have to review and approve every post. I don’t think mods signed up for that level of effort, so Surly would likely die off too. No site operator is willing to be liable for what random idiots post.

Trump is going to absolutely lose his shit that he wasnt first. Stephen Hahn: