Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

865

Section 230 protects a service provider from liabilities that arise from what people say and post on said service. Section 230 basically says "you are not the free speech police and as such are not responsible for what people say."

Now what happens when you remove this protection? You are saying to tech firms "You ARE the free speech police and if you fail to police the speech of your users you can be sued for what people are saying on your platform."

People seem to think that "removing Section 230" will end big tech censorship but it will be the exact opposite. Removing Section 230 will in fact REQUIRE tech firms to censor. If a user drops an f-bomb the platform can be sued for distributing adult content without the proper age rating being displayed. If a user uses the N-word the platform can be prosecuted fro hate speech. The platform will have to censor out of self protection. Worse still however, when the tech firm assumes the role of editor, they can now change, modify or delete any content they want... it is no longer your voice; it is now their voice and they can make it say what ever they want.

But wait! There's more! Now anyone who hosts a forum or any form of social media will be obligated to implement moderators, fact checkers and editors to review, edit and approve all user content. Why? Because if they don't some shill will post some bad words and the FCC will issue a huge fine. Only giant tech monopolies will have the resources to moderate content and hence they will be the only ones that are allowed to host user generated content. Goodby Poal.co. Good by to all of the chans... Facebook and twitter will be the only options.

It still gets worse though... mark my words. Big tech will paint themselves the savior of free speech rather than it's executioner. Big tech will rise to the challenge of saving on line public discussion and will roll out AI driven content moderation tools that all of the 'little guys' can use to avoid being sued and fined out of business. And just like that we will have one centralized algorithm that will moderate all speech on the internet.

Trump has been promising to drain the swamp for 4 years but he has only been controlled opposition all along. It did not happen for Easter, it did not happen in the summer. There was no 10 days of darkness and it is not going to happen on Jan 6.

Go look up the Color Revolution Playbook and realize that a stolen election is part of the plan. 4-D chess is being played but trump is only a pawn.

Section 230 protects a service provider from liabilities that arise from what people say and post on said service. Section 230 basically says "you are not the free speech police and as such are not responsible for what people say." Now what happens when you remove this protection? You are saying to tech firms "You **ARE** the free speech police and if you fail to police the speech of your users you can be sued for what people are saying on your platform." People seem to think that "removing Section 230" will end big tech censorship but it will be the exact opposite. Removing Section 230 will in fact **REQUIRE** tech firms to censor. If a user drops an f-bomb the platform can be sued for distributing adult content without the proper age rating being displayed. If a user uses the N-word the platform can be prosecuted fro hate speech. The platform will have to censor out of self protection. Worse still however, when the tech firm assumes the role of editor, they can now change, modify or delete any content they want... it is no longer your voice; it is now **their** voice and they can make it say what ever they want. But wait! There's more! Now anyone who hosts a forum or any form of social media will be obligated to implement moderators, fact checkers and editors to review, edit and approve all user content. Why? Because if they don't some shill will post some bad words and the FCC will issue a huge fine. Only giant tech monopolies will have the resources to moderate content and hence they will be the only ones that are allowed to host user generated content. Goodby Poal.co. Good by to all of the chans... Facebook and twitter will be the only options. It still gets worse though... mark my words. Big tech will paint themselves the savior of free speech rather than it's executioner. Big tech will rise to the challenge of saving on line public discussion and will roll out AI driven content moderation tools that all of the 'little guys' can use to avoid being sued and fined out of business. And just like that we will have one centralized algorithm that will moderate all speech on the internet. Trump has been promising to drain the swamp for 4 years but he has only been controlled opposition all along. It did not happen for Easter, it did not happen in the summer. There was no 10 days of darkness and it is not going to happen on Jan 6. Go look up the Color Revolution Playbook and realize that a stolen election is part of the plan. 4-D chess is being played but trump is only a pawn.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (16).
[–] • 0 pt

No, there is no such thing as a natural human right at all. That’s what I’m saying. There is nothing protecting you to a right to life if you are inside the jungle, the tiger doesn’t care that somewhere 2000 miles away there’s a piece of paper that says you have a right to life on it. That’s what I was getting at, scribbles on paper are nothing, they are not magical. The constitution is not magical. If the state decided to take your guns away a magical power does not stop them from doing so. That’s what I meant about there being no such things as human rights because there isn’t. A human right is a state given right that is agreed upon by a collective of people with the same mindset and they agree to enforce and defend those rights. If the state does not enforce the right to free speech on megacorps then it doesn’t matter what the piece of paper says does it? This is how the real world works, might is right and the megacorps are mighty and are in bed with the mighty (the US government). They sell data and push propaganda to the state. They are invaluable to the state so the state will not enforce the law on them no matter what a scribble on a piece of paper says. The megacorps won’t even have to abide by the rules of a section 230 repeal, they have all of the power, all of the capital and all of the lawyers. This site would be shut down. Facebook, google and twitter are above the law, they can do whatever they want.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree, there is no such thing as a natural human right. I'm referring to the legalities that Americans live under. I've had these intelligent conversations with you before on another site. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If those empower decide not to uphold the laws we live under, then those laws become meaningless. We are on living at the edge of that right now. It's what happens over the next few years that I'm worried about. I want to see the legal outcomes first. We know what happened in New Zealand. We know when the state came for some men's guns, at the state got their ammunition instead. One chunk of hot lead at a time.

[–] • 0 pt

Yup at the end of the day it’s might makes right and the ultimate expression of might that cannot be ignored is violence. If white Americans wanted to we could overthrow the state tomorrow, the potential might is there. The question is do enough people care about it or have they been mind controlled by propaganda to believe that life is all about netflix and porn?

[–] • 0 pt

Might, yup. The largest standing army in the world is the American Hunter. The question isn't not only whether or not we care, it's also how much we have to lose. Take a look at what you have. Are you willing to throw it all away to make a better world for your children? Now spread the question to every man nationwide. I've seen a lot of people assume that it was a question of comfortability. That we've become too soft. I don't think that's the case. We have too much to lose, against too little to gain. Over the past decade or so that equation has been shifting. An armed man with little or nothing to lose is very dangerous to the state. At this point people do care. Like it or not, the Q psyop got a lot of people to pay attention. I'm headed out, take care of yourself man.