Removing Big Tech’s immunity to lawsuits through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

Donald Trump is currently pursuing this. Do you think it will help our movement and/or free speech?

Richard Spencerrecently debated Jean-François Gariépy on this issue. Spencer opposes the move and claims "the idea of Twitter being treated like a publisher and acting like a publisher seems like a recipe for even more intense banning of users and information. The better approach would be to say (Twitter) is a platform. It is not a publisher"

Any thoughts? I agree with Richard on this one.

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Richard is obviously correct, but it's not going to happen.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

FTN guys are saying this is just a way for the Feds to get their backdoor into encryption. Not quite sure how that works but that's their take.

[–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Iirc, there have been arguments that this would even further monopolize the industry and related fields and make censorship and such even worse. I'm no legal or business expert though, so who knows.

However, I will say that anyone that actually gets to be a lawmaker will never support something that deosn't censor us. Media, social media, etc are DESIGNED to do so, and the Jewish elite and their super-rich Satanist buddies will continue to censor us and will conrinue to rape and sacrifice our kids and taunt us about it.

Efforts like this are very much symbolic crumbs of dignity that are almost certainly wastes of time in the long run. Biden and Harris will undoubtedly undo it or implement restrictive measures, constitution be damned, and the neo-cucks will support it.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Remind me what the differences in treatment are for platforms and publishers. IIRC, this is kind of like treating the internet like a carriage service, or something that is publicly held. Not a perfect comparison but that's my association of them.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Publishers can be sued for what is on their site, platforms are treated as the public space. Richard is saying this will just be used for big tech to crackdown on things they don't like even more 'in order to avoid lawsuits' as a pretense (I assume, haven't watched the video)

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay.

Platform - we're a private company and we'll do what we want.

Publisher - we'll remove what we were before and who knows what else.

It would seem that a platform would be better but they're obviously quite sensitive regarding what they do and don't allow, so they don't really seem to be behaving like a public space. Seems like which ever way they go, they'll really just end up censoring who they want regardless of what their status is.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah pretty much, the publisher thing just gives them more of an excuse not that they need it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"If something is legal in PUBLIC, then it should be legal on your PLATFORM".