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

submitted by SanityIsGC from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Just a heads up. Someone else offered the following opinion casting doubt on the advisability of such a change, a change that might negatively impact saidit as well as reddit. I'm not a lawyer so hard to know who is right:

"...The principle that sites aggregating user-published content are not directly liable for that content is foundational to their very existence. It means that, apart from their duties to remove illegal content and comply with DMCA requests, they don't have to proactively pass every single post through a censor to avoid getting sued for defamation, copyright infringement, negligence, aiding and abetting whatever might be implicated in that content, etc. The only way to realistically do that at scale would be algorithmically filtering all incoming content, which obviously reduces freedom of expression. And for upstart sites that can't afford that kind of monitoring, or don't want to, all it takes is users pissing off the wrong person to put the whole operation in jeopardy. Today, if you don't like how Twitter/Reddit/YouTube is running things, you can hop over to new competitors like Gab/Ruqqus/BitChute. Without section 230 those alternatives might not even be able to get started — and imagine if the larger services decided to flex their litigious muscles against the user content on them.

EFF has a list of key cases involving Section 230 if you're interested in seeing what it protects websites from. Some of the plaintiffs do have good cause, but others are but the key is that the website is protected from claims that are really the fault of the provider of the offending content.

[–]BEB 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I used to love EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation that aims to protect electronic privacy), because, well before trans activist threats, electronic privacy was one of my issues.

However, after seeing how much Big Tech is behind trans demands activism, and how Trans, Inc., has managed to buy the ACLU and the National Organization for Women, etc., and ad nauseam, I don't know if EFF has been bought too.

That's one of the many horrible things about Trans, Inc. - it has bought so many formerly relatively-trustworthy organizations and media outlets (Democracy Now! Scientific American, National Geographic, NBC, Conde Nast, the NEW YORK TIMES, HEALTHLINE, NATURE...) that now one doesn't know who to trust.

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know exactly how you feel. I feel exactly the same. The infiltration and the influence they hold in those organisations is frankly ominous. For the life of me I can't understand why people like Amy Goodman have gone along with this when there is so much big money behind this. The money interests alone should make people pause and ask questions.

[–]lairacunda 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Amy Goodman know how to pick her battles. At the end of the day she's a chickenshit when it comes to trans. It's not possible that she doesn't understand the issues or the implications. She knows that if she ever pronounced herself publicly as GC, if indeed she is, she would be deluged with an onslaught of hate, she would be deplatformed and would lose funding, position and status. She would probably lose her pension as well since KPFA is basically some type of collective. In short her entire community would turn against her. I held hope that she's biding her time but now I'm not so sure. There would have to be a massive change of opinion on the so-called left for AG to actually do any real reporting on trans.