Conservative Inc. is planning to monopolize and censor the internet by removing section 230 protections. Voat.co and crypto are threatened. ( conspiracy )

submitted by cm18

Heads up. Fake conservatives are actively pushing to remove section 230 protections to solidify big tech's monopoly on the internet. Alt-tech has been taking up the slack where twitter, Facebook, Reddit and YouTube have been banning users. Trump's AG, William Barr, has been circulating the idea of removing these protections which shield websites from liability and prosecution for user generated content . Removing these protections will kill all alt tech because they will not be able to afford the costs of policing content. Only Big Tech will have the ability to/and are the only sites currently policing content.

As a sign that this is a serious threat, Paul Singer recently invested heavily in Twitter. On the surface this looks like a conservative trying to undo left leaning bias, but twitter is barely profitable and Singer is known to be a culture capitalist. His move only makes sense if twitter is about to become a monopoly and drastically increase in value.

Billionaire Republican buys major Twitter stake, may oust CEO amid GOP concerns of bias, reports say

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)

Also, I have been following AIM4Truth.org (appears to be a Trump shilling site), and they interviewed a guy that was talking about seeing crypto nodes for supporting criminal activity. However such a lawsuit would fail due to section 230 protections. If these protections are removed, crypto is dead.

NICK FUENTES: AMERICA FIRST - Nick is a conservative calling out the bad actors in the conservative movement that are seeking to censor the internet.

CultureOfCritique

I don't think you get the point of removing section 230 protection. Big tech companies cannot survive in a legal environment where they're responsible for all the content that's posted. Imagine trying to police every Facebook live video stream, every Twitter post, every Youtube video for illegal content-- they can't do it. If even one little infringing post gets through, they're liable, so they'd have to read and censor every single thing that's said.

That's the point... it's impossible. They would have to simply shut down the platforms, which they won't do for obvious profit reasons. Threatening to remove section 230 protection would force them to stop censoring conservatives (like Nick Fuentes) whose message they don't like, because they would have to demonstrate political neutrality in enforcing their rules. It's like threatening to nuke North Korea... obviously it wasn't going to happen, but it scared them enough to come to the table and negotiate.

cm18

Does not matter if they cannot police all the content. They will simply shut down open public content and screen every single submission... selectively allowing each post as they see fit. It basically puts a very narrow funnel on speech.

Threatening to remove section 230 protection would force them to stop censoring conservatives (like Nick Fuentes) whose message they don't like, because they would have to demonstrate political neutrality in enforcing their rules

Incorrect. These fake conservatives are using this narrative to fool Trump supporters into thinking that these 230 exclusions will only be applied to big tech. The talks being had by Barr remove ALL 230 protections. Punishing big tech censorship is the cover story. In actuality they are trying to reighn in everything on the the internet. Only Big Tech with all the eyeballs can be profitable in that environment. Social media as we know it (being able to share information without restraints) will be history.

Tallest_Skil

Section 230 doesn’t protect that. You fundamentally do not understand it.

cm18

Craigslist shuts down its personals section

"The legislation, now awaiting President Donald Trump's signature, would create an exception to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which would pave the way for victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that facilitate their abuse."

SESTA was a trial run. Full removal of 230 would be devastating to the internet as we know it. The internet would become the TV of the 21st century. You can watch, but not interact.

Tallest_Skil

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with your “right” to post somewhere. It does nothing for you. It protects website owners from legal liability for postings by others on said websites.

If I create a website that says “no pro-jew content can be posted here,” I GET TO DELETE LITERALLY ANYTHING I WANT, ANY TIME I WANT, FOR ANY REASON THAT I WANT AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME. I can delete all pro-jew content on that website. You do not have any right, whatsoever, to post content I do not want on my own website. Section 230 does NOTHING about this.

UsernamesAreSo1993

I swear this guy ^^ Tallests_Kill is part of a deeply planned out disinformation campaign. I was reading some other crap he posted like this.. it's very authoritative, it seems to make logical sense and first glance, but upon critical examination it is 100% backwards wrong and totally diminishes the morally correct stance (Freedom and Justice, etc).

Let's examine his post. Classic dis-info techniques. First, his goal is to try to negate the helpful info/warning the OP is offering. He 100% disagrees. No middle ground. Has to use caps-yelling to do it. Associates racism with "our side". He uses a straw-man argument.. shifting the premise over to "I have the right to delete" therefore "Section 230 does not protect you". This does not follow because a website owner's ability to delete does not change with or without Section 230 protections. It is the ability to be anonymous on the web that will disappear if website owners become liable for user content. Do you think they will just claim ownership/liability of your illegal postings? Or will they cover their own asses, by screwing yours?

As it is, Section 230 gives a traditional, logical "common carrier" or "public utility" type status to information service providers. That is how come you don't sue the telephone company or the post office if someone uses their services to commit a crime.

Though crimes would surely be lessened if voters made the government hire extra people to listen in on every phone call and open every letter/package to make sure no crimes were being committed.

If Tallest_Shil wants to make website owners responsible for content they didn't create, why not the server companies hosting the website, or the ISP, or the electric company causing these offensive electric light signals to assault your eyeballs?? It's an illogical slippery slope with a cost to everyone far outweighing the harm for a few.

The fact that Smallest_Ski up here doesn't even whimper the slightest concern for our liberties at danger exposes them as a purposeful conniving anti-patriot piece of shit shill, IMHO. No person is that stupid by accident.

Fuck that guy! Keep on eye on his common theme.

Tallest_Skil

5 day old spam account

OY VEY YOU POSTED TRUTH THAT HURTS MY FEELINGS YOU’RE A SHILL

Neck yourself. It’s all so tiresome.

dis-info

You have no idea what COINTELPRO even is.

negate the helpful info/warning

There is none. OP lied about everything.

  1. “Conservatism” has absolutely nothing to do with the censorship, name tagging of the Internet. OP is spamming the jewish false dichotomy and continuing to recontextualize the narrative laid out by jews. OP lied.
  2. Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with monopolies, censorship, or anonymity. OP lied.

no middle ground

That’s what truth is, dipshit.

Compromise is a jewish technique to get you to abandon reality.

has to use

No, but you’re too retarded to read what’s written normally, so caps make you incapable of ignoring facts that hurt your feelings.

associates racism with “our side”

YOU ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE, NEWFAG SHILL. YOU ARE NOT PART OF US. YOU NEVER HAVE BEEN, YOU NEVER WILL BE.

Racism is the only objectively correct behavior. Your very existence is a lie. You spit in the face of human civilization. All your thoughts, all your words, all your actions are OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT because you make them from the standpoint of the jewish hoax of anti-racism. Get the fuck off our website. You’re not one of us and never will be. You’ve invalidated everything you said.

straw-man

You have no fucking idea what you’re saying, illiterate.

shifting the premise

No, shlomo, OP invented an argument out of thin air (sound familiar?) and I blew him the fuck out with the truth.

shifting the premise

Again, shlomo, OP lied. The premise is Section 230. I posted what it says ( funny how you didn’t reply to THAT post, but rather the other one… ), and nothing OP said is real.

a website owner’s ability to delete does not change with or without section 230

THANK YOU FOR REPEATING WHAT I SAID, IDIOT.

it is the ability to be anonymous

Section 230 has nothing to do with anonymity, illiterate.

if website owners become liable for user content

They already are when it’s illegal. Anything illegal is “anything jews say is illegal.” And anything jews say is illegal is everything pro-white. You, being an anti-racist paid jewish shill, don’t care about this. You care about your cat videos being associated with your real name. Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.

That is how come

Congratulations on disproving OP’s claim.

blah blah ignore that I’m SHIFTING THE PREMISE from discussion of section 230 to “if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide” because of my invented argument

just HATE THE BAD MAN WHO TELLS TRUTHS THAT GO AGAINST MY NARRATIVE

It’s poetry, it really is. Every single fucking time you faggots do the same thing. Almost as though you’re all contracted by the same company to read from the same script or something…

I’m not even going to address how it doesn’t apply to section 230, because you’re so far off base that anyone who reads it will instantly know you’re lying.

if

[I am an autistic child who can only ad hom my enemies instead of disproving them]

wants to make website owners responsible for content they didn’t create

Aaaaaaaaand STRAWMAN! Try again, shlomo!

slippery slope

You literally just have the Wikipedia page for logical fallacies open and are picking them at random, aren’t you.

doesn’t even whimper the slightest concern for our liberties

HAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

So when did YOU stop beating your wife, sockpuppet? Go on. You can tell us.

anti-patriot

My Q-LARP detector is reaching critical levels.

no person is that stupid by accident

Correct. You are THAT stupid because you were brainwashed into being that stupid. or are likely paid.

fuck that guy

Thank you for personally admitting that every word I said is fact. You refuted nothing I said. You addressed nothing I said. You openly agreed with me that OP lied and that section 230 has nothing to do with anything you claimed.

GET OFF OUR WEBSITE. FOREVER. YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE.

cm18

And you don't understand funcking shit.

I said removing 230 creates monopolies. And what do you think the funcking monopolies are currently doing? Censoring funcking content! And if you don't like the censorship, you go elsewhere. 230 protects those alternatives.

GET A FUCKING BRAIN YOU DIP SHITT.

Tallest_Skil

I said removing 230 creates monopolies.

And you would be wrong. You have no idea what it says.

And what do you think the funcking monopolies are currently doing? Censoring funcking content!

Magical. This has nothing to do with 230.

And if you don't like the censorship, you go elsewhere.

There’s nowhere else.

230 protects those alternatives.

It literally does not. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

cm18

You are full of shit. SESTA is a perfect example of what will result. To think that viable alternatives and free speech will thrive without 230 is BS.

What are you? A shill that purchased a boat account or something?

Tallest_Skil

SESTA is a perfect example of what will result.

Has nothing to do with 230.

To think that viable alternatives and free speech will thrive without 230 is BS.

You have no fucking idea what 230 says. It has nothing to do with speech. Sit down and shut up.

What are you?

Laughing at how illiterate and retarded you are.

A shill

“WAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOMMY BAD MAN SAY TRUE THING I NO LIKE HE SHIIIIIIIIIILL”

YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

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 ; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.

IT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT ANYONE CAN CENSOR ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON AND YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING YOU ARE CLAIMING. PUT A BULLET IN YOUR SUBHUMAN RETARDED HEAD.

Diggernicks

Just tighten up your tinfoil buttplug and cease crying

KosherHiveKicker

((( Paul Singer )))

The Jewish, Israel First, homosexual who bought up Billions in Latin American debt and has used it to bankrupt them as he bleeds them for Shekels.

DarkRonin

Voat's probably gone in about a month , anyway.