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

©2025 Poal.co

443

BY now everyone knows what a Warrant Canary is and how important they are but I think we can take the concept one step further. I would like propose a new concept: The Free Speech Canary. This was inspired by fuckburg's FB testimony to congress and the questions from Senator Cruz. It may only be valid in the US, but here is the concept:

  • The Canary page is updated with a second section, The Free Speech Canary.
  • Poal.co declares itself to be a Neutral Public Forum and claims protection under Section 230 immunity
  • Poal.co declares it is open to the general public for use
  • Poal.co commits to not removing content unless it is illegal
  • Poal.co commits to not banning users unless they post illegal content or if they compromise the site functionality (Spam, DDoS, etc.)
  • Poal.co delegates moderation of speech on the site to the users themselves via the Owners and Moderators of individual subs
  • The Owners and Moderators of individual subs may restrict speech but only at the risk of that individual sub loosing Neutral Public Forum status and the Owners and Moderators of that individual sub loosing Section 230 immunity. Poal.co itself maintains Neutral Public Forum status and maintains Section 230 immunity because anyone can create a new sub and talk about anything they want.

In my opinion this would be beneficial in several ways:

  • It may not be rock solid, but I believe that this would give the site owner some important legal protections if they are ever sued in US courts
  • This directly discourages cancer mods and censorship at the the sub level because it makes cancer mods liable for their actions
  • Sub Owners and Mods can still do what they want in their own subs; they are simply responsible for their own actions
BY now everyone knows what a Warrant Canary is and how important they are but I think we can take the concept one step further. I would like propose a new concept: The Free Speech Canary. This was inspired by fuckburg's FB testimony to congress and the questions from Senator Cruz. It may only be valid in the US, but here is the concept: - The Canary page is updated with a second section, The Free Speech Canary. - Poal.co declares itself to be a Neutral Public Forum and claims protection under Section 230 immunity - Poal.co declares it is open to the general public for use - Poal.co commits to not removing content unless it is illegal - Poal.co commits to not banning users unless they post illegal content or if they compromise the site functionality (Spam, DDoS, etc.) - Poal.co delegates moderation of speech on the site to the users themselves via the Owners and Moderators of individual subs - The Owners and Moderators of individual subs may restrict speech but only at the risk of that individual sub loosing Neutral Public Forum status and the Owners and Moderators of that individual sub loosing Section 230 immunity. Poal.co itself maintains Neutral Public Forum status and maintains Section 230 immunity because anyone can create a new sub and talk about anything they want. In my opinion this would be beneficial in several ways: - It may not be rock solid, but I believe that this would give the site owner some important legal protections if they are ever sued in US courts - This directly discourages cancer mods and censorship at the the sub level because it makes cancer mods liable for their actions - Sub Owners and Mods can still do what they want in their own subs; they are simply responsible for their own actions

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (22).
[–] • 0 pt

Puttitout's problem (speculation) with canarys was he made a promise to users that LE kept him from keeping which is why he couldn't make an announcement (and update the canary) for months.

You probably shouldn't even state that you'll report stuff yourself because that can put an onus on you. Safe harbor law read soon. But being honest with users that you "may have to cooperate with law enforcement" if forced is much better than pretending there's a way to protect pervs or whatever like putt did.

[–] • 1 pt

I will be more than happy to go to jail if it protects children from predators.