Warrant canaries are F&G.
Worthless- they have whatever they want already.
Warrant canaries are F&G.
Worthless- they have whatever they want already.
I tawt I taw a puddy tat?
I tawt I taw a puddy tat?
Chirp dirty to me Warrant Canary. You know how I like it.
Chirp dirty to me Warrant Canary. You know how I like it.
She can't she's to dirty for dirty talk.
She can't she's to dirty for dirty talk.
That's one dirty canary. So Poal needs to wash/purify the soul of... its canary.
That's one dirty canary. So Poal needs to wash/purify the soul of... its canary.
Hey what are you gonna she she's a dirty girl. Needs to be ridden hard and put away wet. Have I run out this joke yet?
Hey what are you gonna she she's a dirty girl. Needs to be ridden hard and put away wet. Have I run out this joke yet?
Haha, I remember when things like this mattered.
Haha, I remember when things like this mattered.
I think poal is gonna have a better run than voat did.
I think poal is gonna have a better run than voat did.
Expectations are high but I'm not convinced yet. I wish there was more competition in the area of free speech forums instead of them being picked off one by one.
Expectations are high but I'm not convinced yet. I wish there was more competition in the area of free speech forums instead of them being picked off one by one.
I certainly have the same desire.
I certainly have the same desire.
I hope so but I'm biased.
I hope so but I'm biased.
Almost 70,000 poal points...
Holy hell, you ain't lying!
Almost 70,000 poal points...
Holy hell, you ain't lying!
Well being the founder and one of the admins I would expect I'd have a few.
Well being the founder and one of the admins I would expect I'd have a few.
What happens when they get rid of section 230?
heracleides warrant canary 1/1/2021: I claim zero responsibility for s/multiculturalcancer
What happens when they get rid of section 230?
heracleides warrant canary 1/1/2021: I claim zero responsibility for s/multiculturalcancer
Don't know but we might find out.
Don't know but we might find out.
American case law goes back to the Compuserve and Prodigy cases. Compuserve exercised no editorial control and was determined by courts to be a service provider, not a publisher, and wasn't liable. Prodigy moderated its forums, and the courts held that moderating (rather than just pulling down illegal content) was publishing.
Congress wanted to ban porn, but didn't want the cooperating sites to be open to being sued for publishing, so they came up with Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The porn ban got thrown out by courts for violating free speech, but Sec 230 remained. If you read the actual section, you will see that it was intended to shield forums that moderated out porn, but (((big tech))) drove a truck through the "otherwise objectionable" phrase.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(Note: para (B) is just about porn blockers, not websites.)
American case law goes back to the *Compuserve* and *Prodigy* cases. Compuserve exercised no editorial control and was determined by courts to be a service provider, not a publisher, and wasn't liable. Prodigy moderated its forums, and the courts held that moderating (rather than just pulling down illegal content) was publishing.
Congress wanted to ban porn, but didn't want the cooperating sites to be open to being sued for publishing, so they came up with Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The porn ban got thrown out by courts for violating free speech, but Sec 230 remained. If you read the actual section, you will see that it was *intended* to shield forums that moderated out porn, but (((big tech))) drove a truck through the "otherwise objectionable" phrase.
> (2)Civil liability
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(Note: para (B) is just about porn blockers, not websites.)
(post is archived)