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

©2025 Poal.co

591

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/why-ban-of-realdonaldtrump-proves-twitter-not-just-a-platform/

We know the trick. This does not stop big tech, it helps them kill their competition, because alt-tech cannot survive in an envrionment where they can be sued for 3rd party content. BigTech is the only ones that can deal with the legalities of posting 3rd party content.

They're never going to stop trying to kill the internet.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/why-ban-of-realdonaldtrump-proves-twitter-not-just-a-platform/ We know the trick. This does not stop big tech, it helps them kill their competition, because alt-tech cannot survive in an envrionment where they can be sued for 3rd party content. BigTech is the only ones that can deal with the legalities of posting 3rd party content. They're never going to stop trying to kill the internet.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Actually, that's not true. This law should be aplicable only to companies with certain revenue and amount of views.

[–] • 2 pts

That's a reform of 230. The NYP is calling for a repeal, just as Trump has.

In fact, its the main reason I think Trump is controlled opposition and the whole thing is just theater to build more laws for more control. He never came up with a reform idea, he just pushed the repeal BS, which would be disastrous for the internet.

[–] • 1 pt

He's been a terrible president sadly, so he'd fail as usual by giving big players even more leverage for sure.

[–] • 1 pt

He's done a lot of things correctly, but looking at the big picture, he's isolated conservatives (with the help of big tech) and sort of convinced a large number of them that BigTech will be hurt by repealing 230. The latest stuff with regards to the election cycle and "trust the plan" makes me think that the move was to make Trump supporters look crazy so that ((they)) could implode America. Seeing it happen in real time has taught me quite a bit.

The internet is a serious thorn in the side of those who want to see a world government. The internet and social media continually exposes lies and false narratives to critical examination. The lies and fake narratives rarely hold up. The internet has to go if they're to finish their plans.

[–] • 2 pts

What the fuck are you trying to claim?

Are you claiming that 230 should not be removed?

Removal of 230 would not hurt alternative social media sites. It wouldn't hurt poal for example. AOU doesn't modify user's content in anyway. The most he does is move them into different subs which isn't taking a roll as a publisher.

Removal of 230 significantly hurts kikebook, twitter, jewgle, apple, microsoft etc.

So if that's the point you're arguing against then;

(((you)))

[–] • 1 pt

Yes, it would, poal could be sued for the content here, easily. Big tech are the only ones that could afford to screen every single post, which is what would happen in a non 230 world.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Why would poal lose 230 protections?

Big tech clearly is not covered by Section 230 because they act like a publisher.....

[–] • 0 pt

The words publisher and platform aren't in 230. That distinction is meaningless.

[–] • 0 pt

poal could be sued for the content here,

Under what premise?

What content here does 230 protect?

[–] • 1 pt

All of it. As soon as someone posts"kill all jews." Poal is sued.

This is all verified with some internet searching, go learn how the law really works.

[–] • 0 pt

Removal of 230 would not hurt alternative social media sites.

https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-section-230-reform-endangers-internet-free-speech/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually

  • FOSTA punched one small hole in the 230 protections with regards to sex trafficking. It means that sites don't have 230 protections when it comes to sex trafficking. In response, CraigsList quickly shut down it's personal ads. This is a perfect case study of what will happen to alt-tech if the 230 protections are lost.

Removal of 230 significantly hurts kikebook, twitter, jewgle, apple, microsoft etc.

That's what they WANT you to think. If alt-tech cannot compete on the same footing that built alt-tech, then alt-tech cannot become large enough to unseat these companies. BigTech will use patented AI, and legal teams to deal with potentially legal liabilities. Atl-tech cannot afford these things and the market will then have a big mote around it, preventing competition. Basically, the internet will become closed to all and free speech that we currently enjoy will be lost.

[–] • 0 pt

(((EFF)))

The people who lied for years and years and years about net neutrality?

Who lied that ISPs couldn't throttle you with NN in effect due to some rule that didn't exist?

How jewgle lied to you about NN?

You honestly think I'm going to believe anything they claim after they gas-lighted the planet for years while giving the keys of the internet to jewgle?

NN was only good for jewgle and the like. NN did not in any way prevent an ISP from throttling.

But jewgle totally was honest goy!

Fuck off.

[–] • 0 pt

The people who lied for years and years and years about net neutrality?

Does not discount if they've got a good point.

Fuck off.

Well, if you're just going to be an ass, same to you bud.

[–] • 2 pts

Trump can easily sue them. This isn't about the content anymore. They're insinuating he promotes and condones violence. He does not. He stated clearly that there will be an orderly transition on 20th. Stating he won't be attending the ceremony does not incite the violence. He needs to sue them big time. Twitter can't be responsible for the content posted on their platform, but they're responsible for their own actions and words. Trump's good name has been tarnished here.

[–] • 1 pt

If Trump can sue, great! But, that's not what the article is promoting.

At the bottom...

Either Section 230 needs to be repealed, and Twitter must responsibly police who it hosts, or Twitter needs to step back and let the public decide what is acceptable or not.

Repealing 230 HELPS Twitter and big tech because it kills alt-tech and potential competition. The article is a trick.

[–] • 1 pt

You clearly don't understand law. The reason is irrelevant. They own the platform and have the 1st amendment right to allow or deny who they see fit. Any suit would get tossed.

[–] • 2 pts

You're first amendment ends when you start spreading fake news about somebody. If somebody calls you a pedo, there's basis for litigation. There are tons of ways of going about it. Twitter's been discriminating him for quite some time. You have a dude who threatens to wipe out Israel, but he doesn't get banned or his post removed.

[–] • 1 pt

I don't know why they aren't already on F-Droid? I guess you'll just have to Google the APK itself.

https://apkpure.com/parler/com.parler.parler For example. No idea if apkpure is full of viruses or what.

[–] • 0 pt

They can make it go this way using additional copyright censorship, but simply repealing 230 would still allow common carrier policy that creates things like 4chan - no website-admins can regulate legal content or moderate in any way, including through private communications with user-moderators.

And gig publishers like twitter would have to give up their controls or be responsible for all published content.

[–] • 0 pt

Alt-tech would be gummed up with useless spam if they could not moderate their content. There's a good reason that people like google mail... it has very good AI and spam removal. Only big tech would be able to moderate (using AI and a minimal amount of man power). Their product would be superior (but also highly censored and controlled).

[–] • 0 pt

Third party user-controlled moderation tools would close the gap. Users would be able to block content, ideology, mood, etc.

There's no problems with users controlling their own experience. Anti-spam tools would be the first add-on created.