Current Events > Trump threatens to veto major defense bill unless Section 230 is repealed.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1333977057383026688

#NEW President #Trump @realdonaldtrump threatens to veto major defense bill #NDAA unless Congress repeals Section 230, a legal liability shield for tech giants whom the President says unfairly target conservatives.

Here is the President's tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375839621120

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528301-trump-threatens-to-veto-defense-bill-over-tech-liability-shield

There's a news article that isn't a tweet.

Mouth breathers will cheer this on until it happens and then they'll see how fast that they won't be able to do anything social online

Then of course they'll act all butthurt and betrayed.

Repealing Section 230 just means that any internet anything that accepts user text input will cease functioning immediately. This includes every social network, video hosting, livestreaming, chatroom, and consumer review site.

Messageboards are already being killed off for being too much of a hassle to moderate and maintain. Adding the additional hassle of a sysadmin or manager going to jail just means it would be a ludicrous liability risk to even have comments on a website.

death of message boards rise of private discords where people can have bigger hug boxes and none of the accountability, something like this would also obliterate twitter and facebook

---

I wish Jack would just @ him and straight up state that Trump would be banned from Twitter the second it was repealed.

Also this is now going to pass with a veto-proof majority
---

imagine wanting something that makes the internet as a whole function because people make jokes about how you shit your pants

---

tremain07 posted...

rise of private discords

"private"

metralo posted...

imagine wanting something that makes the internet as a whole function because people make jokes about how you shit your pants

Because he has no remote clue how the internet works.

All he knows is that "this can make these clowns not censor me (because then I won't be able to say anything at all)" even if that may not be based in reality.

tremain07 posted...

death of message boards rise of private discords where people can have bigger hug boxes and none of the accountability, something like this would also obliterate twitter and facebook

Except there wouldn't be anyone to run the private discord.

Social media is a plague, but nuking the internet to stop it isn't the right choice either

---

I would like a recall on all the mods. Seriously who voted these incompetent fucks in?

oh no

---

Without 230 Republicans would be banned everywhere immediately. This would directly turn the internet into the "can't say anything thought police" that Republicans claim it already is. These sites would instantly ban pretty much every "lightning rod" conservatives to avoid being sued or fined. Those Liberal PC Pussies you hate so much would rule the internet, Conservatives.

---

Mr_Rian posted...

Without 230 Republicans would be banned everywhere immediately. This would directly turn the internet into the "can't say anything thought police" that Republicans claim it already is. These sites would instantly ban pretty much every "lightning rod" conservatives to avoid being sued or fined. Those Liberal PC Pussies you hate so much would rule the internet, Conservatives.

That's what biden wants. What trump and Republicans want is to modify it such that companies that edit or heavily moderate their user's content would not be protected under this law.
Basically there is bipartisan support for change here, but for completely different reasons.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/09/11/trump-biden-section-230-big-tech-zw-orig.cnn-business

---

TomNook20 posted...

What trump and Republicans want is to modify it such that companies that edit or heavily moderate their user's content would not be protected under this law.

Full repeal is suddenly wanting it modified?

The administration laid out what they want in the executive order https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

---

MachineJaipur posted...

Section 230, a legal liability shield for tech giants

Ignoring all the other arguments involved, why is this part of a defense funding bill?

---

Crazyman93 posted...

Ignoring all the other arguments involved, why is this part of a defense funding bill?

It's not

It's just Trump being Trump not realizing that not even the GOP will entertain this when it comes to the NDAA. Like it or not the guy is basically trying to extort Congress into doing his bidding by threatening national security, and neither party is going to be party to that.
---

That veto isn't going to matter. If there's one thing both parties agree on, it's ballooning the fuck out of the defense budget.

---

TomNook20 posted...

That's what biden wants. What trump and Republicans want is to modify it such that companies that edit or heavily moderate their user's content would not be protected under this law.

Declaring that twitterinstabook et al. are "common carriers" is also a terrible idea. Gutting 230 and handing over the entire internet to giants who have the resources to pre-moderate everything and lawyer away mistakes, would be a complete goddamn disaster.

The better answer, is to promote Section 230 to a constitutional amendment, as-is.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Declaring that twitterinstabook et al. are "common carriers" is also a terrible idea. Gutting 230 and handing over the entire internet to giants who have the resources to pre-moderate everything and lawyer away mistakes, would be a complete goddamn disaster.

The better answer, is to promote Section 230 to a constitutional amendment, as-is.

No it's actually a pretty good idea. A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

---

Oh good another shitty alt right troll for the ignore list

TomNook20 posted...

A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

You have no more a right to spout nonsense on twitterbook or some messageboard, than you do on my front porch.

Questionmarktarius posted...

You have no more a right to spout nonsense on twitterbook or some messageboard, than you do on my front porch.

No idea what twitterbook is but on social media platforms you certainly do. Their whole business is centered around people talking using their platforms unlike a grumpy old boomer's yard, but anyway this is really off topic and I don't know why you even brought it up.

---

TomNook20 posted...

I don't know why you even brought it up.

Context suggested that...

No it's actually a pretty good idea.

...is in reference to the "common carrier" idea.

and?

---

Also I think you're using the term common carriers to mean the opposite of what it means.

---

TomNook20 posted...

Also I think you're using the term common carriers to mean the opposite of what it means.

Looks like it. I'm thinking phone, but it actually means FedEx. Oops.
"Public platform" is the dumb idea.

*Section 230 is repealed*
"Each and every US-based social media company relocates to operate from Canada/Ireland/France/Germany/Norway/Finland etc.*

---

Thompson posted...

"Each and every US-based social media company relocates to operate from Canada/Ireland/France/Germany/Norway/Finland etc.*

I wonder what the feasibility would be of buying some island in the Bahamas and setting up a gigantic server farm.

threatening to hold up the defense bill? sounds like a good way to lose support of the military right before attempting a coup and throw out the constitution

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

You have no more a right to spout nonsense on twitterbook or some messageboard, than you do on my front porch.

I have mixed feelings on that. If groups and individuals are going to use social media to promote their platforms, services, or otherwise communicate with the public, can we really keep saying they're exempt from the first amendment because they're a private enterprise? If the President is using social media to promote his policy changes, and your local sheriff's office is sharing their most wanted, being the things I mean.

Granted, the best solution would be for all of them to get the hell off social media and put out actual articles on official sites and news outlets, but I have a weird feeling that will never happen.

---

How does this target conservatives specifically?
---

TomNook20 posted...

A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

But that violates the first amendment.
---

TomNook20 posted...

No it's actually a pretty good idea. A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

That would essentially mean the government is obligated to arrest people who delete your shit posts off GameFAQs.

---

TomNook20 posted...

No it's actually a pretty good idea. A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

You really need to learn what the 1st Amendment does and doesn't do, because your statement makes zero sense.

TomNook20 posted...

No it's actually a pretty good idea. A better idea would be to extend the first amendment to apply to such platforms.

Trumpers not understanding the first amendment? Color me SHOCKED

It's fine, let him just shut down the government again like he did a few years ago - at least we know it'll be over come the end of January.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That would essentially mean the government is obligated to arrest people who delete your shit posts off GameFAQs.

Taken to an extreme, wonder how long it'd take trolls to just post extreme porn content on non-adult websites before the Christian Right demanded the ability to censor content they don't like, thereby exposing their hypocrisy?

Tyranthraxus posted...

That would essentially mean the government is obligated to arrest people who delete your shit posts off GameFAQs.

That has nothing to do with 230 and is not at all what would happen. 230 is just about the classification of electronic services as distributors instead of publishers. Being a distributor means that you are not liable for the content posted, subject to accordance with other laws most notably the DMCA where an electronic service would be liable for hosting copyrighted material if the do not remove it within a time frame of being alerted to it.

Without 230 we would revert to the previous rulings in the matter, websites that moderate content would be considered publishers and those that don't would remain distributors. What that means for sites that continue to moderate is not that they can be arrested or sued for how the moderate, but that they are liable for the content the allow to be posted. (Theoretically you could attempt to sue that all content related to some subject is being moderated assuming that content is tied to a protected class, but that wouldn't help conservatives as they are not a protected class)

This mostly just means that any platform that moderates opens itself up to a bunch of lawsuits. If I post that Mitch McConnell looks like a constipated turtle and GameFaqs leaves that post up while choosing to delete some other posts then Mitch could sue GameFaqs for defamation.

The goal they think is going to happen is that it will cause all these services to stop moderating anything so they would not be subject to lawsuits. But what will actually happen is they will all shut down, because advertisers aren't going to pay money to be listed alongside hardcore pornography and hate speech.

Man that's a lot of bullshit to type up to announce you didn't bother to read that I was responding to a guy that said the first amendment should be extended to user content driven Social platforms.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That would essentially mean the government is obligated to arrest people who delete your shit posts off GameFAQs.

Gamefaqs isn't involved with this discussion. This only concerns large social media platforms like facebook or twitter, not some random site you shitpost on.

---

TomNook20 posted...

Gamefaqs isn't involved with this discussion. This only concerns large social media platforms like facebook or twitter, not some random site you shitpost on.

That's not true. 230 affects the entire Internet. And tearing it away would fuck over every site. Even shit like blogs. Without 230, bloggers could be responsible for comments posted.

I really don't think you understand the issue here.

TomNook20 posted...

Gamefaqs isn't involved with this discussion. This only concerns large social media platforms like facebook or twitter, not some random site you shitpost on.

Keep telling yourself that and when you can no longer submit any form of text to a website without you entering into a contract and waiting days or weeks for your content to be published then tell me how *insert site* isn't involved

TomNook20 posted...

Gamefaqs isn't involved with this discussion. This only concerns large social media platforms like facebook or twitter, not some random site you shitpost on.

The law doesn't care how large of a social platform you are. Not sure why you think even if it did that a constitutional right would somehow not be even more generalized.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The law doesn't care how large of a social platform you are. Not sure why you think even if it did that a constitutional right would somehow not be even more generalized.

The great thing about creating or changing laws is that you can specify what they apply to. Not sure why you think that you can't.

---

TomNook20 posted...

The great thing about creating or changing laws is that you can specify what they apply to. Not sure why you think that you can't.

The moment you allow an exception you only invite the owners of that platform to find ways to exploit the exception so it doesn't apply to them.

---

Not an exception, it's defining the scope for which the law applies to. It could be stated generally or very specifically. Anyway, we're now talking about how to word specific legislation, not the general principles behind it.

---

TomNook20 posted...

Not an exception, it's defining the scope

AKA exceptions.

---

TomNook20 posted...

Not an exception, it's defining the scope for which the law applies to. It could be stated generally or very specifically. Anyway, we're now talking about how to word specific legislation, not the general principles behind it.

I dont understand how you think youre saying intelligent things in this topic.

---