this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2020

93 points (94% insightful | 6% fun)

GenderCritical

3,478 readers

~1 user here now

Mods will remove opposing opinions that are high on the pyramid of debate in accordance of rule 4b. Such comments may result in a ban. Notes on conduct: no slurs, that includes the T-slur. Acceptable terms are: Trans-identified Male (TiM), transwomen/woman, Trans-identified Female (TiF), transmen/man. Misogynistic slurs like c*nt will be removed regardless of context.

this is not a debate sub! We will get around to making the debate sub for anyone with questions about gender critical ideas or radical feminism. We are migrating over from Reddit after the bannings.

Female is Not a Feeling. We won't go down quietly.

Re-forming wherever we can: Spinster.xyz

Feminism is the movement to liberate women from patriarchy. We stand up for the rights of women to control our own bodies as individuals and to control women-only spaces as a class.

Women are adult human females. We do not believe that men can become women by 'feeling' like women. We do not condone the erasure of females and female-only spaces, the silencing of critical thinking, the denial of biological reality and of sex-based oppression. We oppose the 'cotton ceiling' and the pressure on lesbians to have sex with men. We resist efforts to limit women's reproductive autonomy. We condemn the men who exploit and abuse women in prostitution and pornography.

"Women do not decide at some point in adulthood that they would like other people to understand them to be women, because being a woman is not an ‘identity.’ Women’s experience does not resemble that of men who adopt the ‘gender identity’ of being female or being women in any respect. The idea of ‘gender identity’ disappears biology and all the experiences that those with female biology have of being reared in a caste system based on sex." - Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts

created by gparmesana community for 3 years

message the moderators

MODERATORS

Americans: If you have been affected by the Reddit banning wave, the FCC would like to hear from you

submitted 3 years ago by SanityIsGC from self.GenderCritical

12 comments

new insightful fun

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fuckingsealions 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)

Ok, I do not have time to research this atm, but there seems to be nuance to what this might affect. Comment from thread:

Channelbot_Reborn 4h You need to know what you're signing before you do it.

The instructions provided are for leaving comments in favor of repealing Section 230. This isn't about Reddit specifically.

Section 230 protects websites from being held accountable for content their users upload. Without this protection, sites like 4chan basically can't function. Any malicious party could find a way to jam child porn through and get any site taken down.

Reddit is a shithole, but repealing section 230 would be a death blow to basically any platform that allows users to upload their own content, except ones run by companies with billions in the bank. Repealing 230 would kill competition for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and so on.

Reddit has serious internal issues but this isn't the solution.

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago* (1 child)

fyi the reply by Dookiespeaks' argues against that interpretation:

"Section 230 protects websites from being held accountable for content their users upload. Without this protection, sites like 4chan basically can't function. Any malicious party could find a way to jam child porn through and get any site taken down.

The recent executive order said this:

When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

Subparagraph (c)(2)(A) says this: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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

So the executive order is meant to remove the protections of (c)(2)(A) from sites that edit their content beyond what is outlined in that subparagraph. "Regular" censorship of illegal and obscene materials is not part of that. You can't get a website banned with CP since that would still be protected by (c)(2)(A), only censorship beyond that would be affected. The executive order is not trying to get rid of the whole section, just remove the protections of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) from websites that use it to shut out opinions they don't like.

Put simply: It would make a website like Twitter or Reddit (unless they drastically change their censorship policies) as responsible for their content as CNN is responsible for their comments section (if they still have them lol). CNN can still delete illegal materials under (c)(2)(A).

4chan would not be affected by this since they don't delete opinions they don't like, they only delete illegal materials."

Further down the thread, Dookiespeaks states:

"... If you read the executive order, it's not trying to get rid of Section 230, it's just trying to remove the protections that allow websites to delete illegal and harassing material from websites that delete any and all opinions they don't like while pretending it's part of the same protection. Websites that simply delete illegal materials (like 4chan) would still be protected by section 230. I replied to the comment directly quoting the relevant subparagraph of Section 230 as well as the executive order.""

[–]fuckingsealions 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)