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

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 5 pts

Of course. This way their shills would be able to destroy any site just by posting crap.

[–] • 1 pt

bingo. it'll be selective just as it is now. wishing for death to DJT, we support that. calling for a patriotic rally over a clearly fraudulent election, to the gulag.

[–] • 0 pt

IT'S FOR SAFETY STUPID GOY!

[–] • 4 pts

Aka more censorship.

[–] • 4 pts

So, rather than revise 230 to remove protections for sites that actively manipulate content, thus becoming publishers, they’re opting to instead make any Internet forum they don’t like subject to penalties for any opposing trollfag to come along and post illegal content?

Shocking.

[–] • 2 pts

Yep it's so those faggots at SPLC can send their faggots to infiltrate and make places look bad. Two can play at that game.

[–] • 3 pts

Not sure how. The golden(stein) children never get their comeuppance.

[–] • 0 pt

The game is rigged so no they cant. The sites that have already seized power can censor like no one else. Then as always there will be special rules for special groups. There will also no doubt be ever more demands for your private information from them as a sign that they truly dont approve of you.

They want every second of everything you do recorded. That way they can fully snuff out any opposition in any way needed. Ideally before it ever exists. If it was easy enough to do they would record your every thought as well. Since it isnt for now the powers that be only advocate for literal brain scans.

[–] • 0 pt

I think there's been an impression that removing 230 protections would keep Big Tech from censoring conservatives. I don't see how. As we're looking at here, it seems this would only cause platforms to step up their censorship and make alternative platforms unable to operate.

The government should be going after Big Tech for monopoly abuse; no new laws needed. They actively purchase competitors and collude to lock out any new platforms from revenue and even the resources to operate. Shit, Google owns the way a majority of sites make revenue. If the government hasn't the stones to enforce the laws we've got, I don't see how new ones are going to help. The branch of government that's supposed to do that is The Executive; I understand it's been hard to get a good one with the election cheating, which is why it all comes back to "no political solution" I suppose.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Only the mega Technofascist sites would be able to handle the onslaught of lawsuits and thus be the only place you can post.

See ya, Internet. It was a good run

[–] • 0 pt

Technocommunist...there's nothing fascist about big tech.

[–] • 2 pts

Every aspect of the government and all that they hold sway over is going after wrong think. Doing its best to create a pristine and inescapeable global sized prison.

This is just another step in that. A fine method of killing off any site not fully in on the plan too.

Since most cower from government oppression you can expect sites to sacrifice any privacy their users thought they had if it helps cover their own ass.

[–] • 1 pt

My question (rhetorical) will all the pedofags still get their daily dose of twitter child porn?

[–] • 0 pt

Seems like victims could actually sue Twitter if the protections are removed. Twitter might have to police itself better, and pedos might have to go elsewhere. I don't think the government can actually eliminate child porn; just push it deeper underground.

[–] • 0 pt

Yes they will because pedophilia will be normalized and then legalized starting in the state of commiefornia.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The real people behind this bill are the same people behind last week's report claiming that Conservatives are NOT censored by social media.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf

[–] • 0 pt

I don't trust the people benefiting from censorship on social media to be effective in ending censorship by social media companies

[–] • 0 pt

Does anyone find it odd that in the future we'll have to place our servers in Russia in order to have freedom of speech online?

[–] • 0 pt

I guess. I suspect that if you wanted to talk shit about Putin, in Russian, you couldn't host your site in Russia. Using a country that's not opposed to what you're trying to say might be a more practical solution than trying to rely on free speech.