Tulsi Gabbard supports Repeal of Section 230

[Adeptus Astartes]

The Queen of the contrarians supports ending user generated content on the internet.

@newworldafro
@AnonymityX1000

 

[OfTheCross]

I mean, presumably, if it's repealed and all of these companies are forced to only allow "factual" posts...it's bad for Trump

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

I mean, presumably, if it's repealed and all of these companies are forced to only allow "factual" posts...it's bad for Trump

Their argument is that sec. 230 hanpers free speech on the internet. Sec. 230 is the only reason why we have free speech on the internet.

If admins were liable for user content, they would not allow user content, or would have to moderate everything in advance. If they disallow moderation, you wind up with spam, trolling, porn, violent content, etc. What's really going to kill this is that the internet will be impossible to monetize without 230.

 

[AquaCityBoy]

Female Dave Rubin.

 

[88m3]

atrocious

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

of course she does

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Not my area of expertise so I don't have a strong feelings either way.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

"ItZ aBoUt cEnSoRsHiP!!1" These idiots have no idea the pandora's box they're opening if they remove the ability of sites to moderate user content

Porn on children's forums. Incels brigading women's rape counseling groups. NAMBLA propaganda on family forums. ISIS propaganda on YouTube. They want the whole internet to look like /b/ on *****...

 

[ORDER_66]

 

[Red Shield]

Tulsi just needs to slink off or join the repubs at this point. Her political career is shot

Their argument is that sec. 230 hanpers free speech on the internet. Sec. 230 is the only reason why we have free speech on the internet.

If admins were liable for user content, they would not allow user content, or would have to moderate everything in advance. If they disallow moderation, you wind up with spam, trolling, porn, violent content, etc. What's really going to kill this is that the internet will be impossible to monetize without 230.

yep. take away section 230 and the internet is gonna be heavily moderated afterwards.

shyt ain't gonna pan out like those rightwing fools think it will

 

[88m3]

Not my area of expertise so I don't have a strong feelings either way.

of course

 

[the cac mamba]

tulsi monroe

 

[Reality Check]

She's out of a job come January so her opinion is irrelevant.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

"ItZ aBoUt cEnSoRsHiP!!1" These idiots have no idea the pandora's box they're opening if they remove the ability of sites to moderate user content

Porn on children's forums. Incels brigading women's rape counseling groups. NAMBLA propaganda on family forums. ISIS propaganda on YouTube. They want the whole internet to look like /b/ on *****...

I thought this would make the internet more censored not less? If they are are a publisher and responsible for content won't they increase their oversight by a lot?

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

I thought this would make the internet more censored not less? If they are are a publisher and responsible for content won't they increase their oversight by a lot?

This whole "publisher vs platform" thing is BS. I don't seenit anywhere in the law.

It depends on what part of 230 they attack. It has 2 main parts; one providing immunity, the ither providing moderation ability. They kill the former, the latter is irrelevant. No site would risk allowing user content at all, and prescreening would be too hard and expensive. They kill the latter, the internet become /b/, an unmoderated free for all of debauchery.

Conservatives are butthurt that major platforms don't tolerate racism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.