Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

True - and the thing's new enough that I can't find full bill text online. Everything I can find, however suggests that it is nowhere near as broad-spectrum and aggressive as the people panicking about it say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you believe anything that comes out of Thom Tillis' money-stuffed mouth, you'll get renditioned by Disney mercenaries faster than you can say Mousekete-

[MrRoboto75]

The authors of the bill specifically called out video game streaming as perfectly fine and something they were NOT targeting.

Though I haven't heard of much or anything in the actual legislation that makes sure it's not targeted. The authors of the bill saying they're not targeting something means exactly piss (in the "piss on you and tell you it's raining" sense) if the bill's mechanisms are used to do so anyway, after all.

I seriously doubt some senators could open a web browser, navigate to youtube or twitch or whatever, and show me an example of a video game streamer.

[Dostoevsky]

True - and the thing's new enough that I can't find full bill text online. Everything I can find, however suggests that it is nowhere near as broad-spectrum and aggressive as the people panicking about it say.

It's been public since before the vote, just not necessarily intuitive to find. Starts on page 2539 of this pdf (they mucked up page numbering, so stick to the pdf's page numbers).

Note that there are three bills, not two, if one is counting the TM Act that starts on page 2606 (on trademarks instead of copyrights, but in my opinion also very crummy). The (rebuttable) presumption of "irreparable harm" in that one is going to be a boon for IP trolls.

[Starver]

I seriously doubt some senators could open a web browser, navigate to youtube or twitch or whatever, and show me an example of a video game streamer.

Don't worry. The British government is pretty fly with all the cool and trendy new tech. I'm sure they could help out

(Booyah! Like, could they be so 'with it'? Whaszaaaap!?!?)

[Duuvian]

I guess Mitch really wants to give Democrats more political ammunition in Georgia.

Is there a draft for a section 230 replacement or is it straight removal?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

I don't think people realize how important this law has been to the development of a free internet. It keeps people such as whoever operates this forum (not sure if that would be SMF or Toady or both) from being liable should something illegal be placed by a 3rd party on their website. The last time I'm aware of section 230 status being in the news was when the feds went after the notorious prostitution website Backpage, which yes probably should have been shut due to the existence of a black market leading to more widespread exploitation and mass incarceration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/09/600360618/backpage-founders-indicted-on-charges-of-facilitating-prostitution

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/backpagecom-ceo-charged-with-pimping-in-california/287-333983236

Section 230 is an immunity law, which generally are interpreted very broadly, including for prosecutors or law enforcement duties. Once it was removed, the website operators were criminally liable for what others had used their site for. Not defending backpage's operators here because it sounds pretty awful, just saying that's the one example I know of offhand where section 230 was removed.

While there is no way to tell how a repeal of section 230 would be handled, does the idea of a foreign troll farm posting illegal material on websites to intentionally bring down platforms of their political opponents seem that outlandish in 2020? Could we say that either of the two major US sides would not gleefully send each other in front of a judge with this?

At the very least it would cause a dramatic redesign of websites that allow user submitted content.

Either way it's an attempt to weaken a free internet, which by the way is one of the US and other governments' great advantages over more restrictive competitors in that when a shitty self centered leader takes power the US public is better prepared to wage a political argument against the paid trolls; moreso with section 230 than without it.

How about instead of this, we do something actually useful for the average internet user, and make it so it's illegal for websites to harvest personal information for sale without consent, with no consent required to use the website.

EDIT: Tried to balance good taste with my deeds by removing focus on adult tubes as an example of sites under the gun if 230 is removed since really it's much broader than that; that was just my guess as to what's going down first post-230, as someone or organization has already done the dirty work the past few years with what appears to be a step- caption flood campaign that is otherwise difficult to explain.

[Vector]

Josh Hawley, R Missouri, has apparently decided to contest the election results in the Senate

this dingus does not spark joy

[Lord Shonus]

I guess Mitch really wants to give Democrats more political ammunition in Georgia.

Is there a draft for a section 230 replacement or is it straight removal?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

I don't think people realize how important this law has been to the development of a free internet. It keeps people such as whoever operates this forum (not sure if that would be SMF or Toady or both) from being liable should something illegal be placed by a 3rd party on their website. The last time I'm aware of section 230 status being in the news was when the feds went after the notorious prostitution website Backpage, which yes probably should have been shut due to the existence of a black market leading to more widespread exploitation and mass incarceration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/09/600360618/backpage-founders-indicted-on-charges-of-facilitating-prostitution

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/backpagecom-ceo-charged-with-pimping-in-california/287-333983236

Section 230 is an immunity law, which generally are interpreted very broadly, including for prosecutors or law enforcement duties. Once it was removed, the website operators were criminally liable for what others had used their site for. Not defending backpage's operators here because it sounds pretty awful, just saying that's the one example I know of offhand where section 230 was removed.

While there is no way to tell how a repeal of section 230 would be handled, does the idea of a foreign troll farm posting illegal material on websites to intentionally bring down platforms of their political opponents seem that outlandish in 2020? Could we say that either of the two major US sides would not gleefully send each other in front of a judge with this?

At the very least it would cause a dramatic redesign of websites that allow user submitted content.

Either way it's an attempt to weaken a free internet, which by the way is one of the US and other governments' great advantages over more restrictive competitors in that when a shitty self centered leader takes power the US public is better prepared to wage a political argument against the paid trolls; moreso with section 230 than without it.

How about instead of this, we do something actually useful for the average internet user, and make it so it's illegal for websites to harvest personal information for sale without consent, with no consent required to use the website.

EDIT: Tried to balance good taste with my deeds by removing focus on adult tubes as an example of sites under the gun if 230 is removed since really it's much broader than that; that was just my guess as to what's going down first post-230, as someone or organization has already done the dirty work the past few years with what appears to be a step- caption flood campaign that is otherwise difficult to explain.

The 230 stuff is a poison pill - Mitch doesn't want to take the heat for killing the $2000, but also doesn't want the Democrats to get the credit. He's hoping that sticking in the Repeal 230 (which Trump wants, because he thinks that would allow him to bully Twitter into giving him the proper worship) stuff will make the Democrats kill it and thus drop the blame on their heads.

Problem is that there's no time for the debate and reconciliation process before this Congress adjourns for the final time - the 116th Congress ends Sunday - and all bills die. It is literally impossible for this to pass, and everybody's going to make damn sure the voters know it.



All that said, most people do not understand what 230 does at all.

[Duuvian]

Indeed, I read up on it back as long ago as when those stories I linked were in the news because I was using one of those softwares for looking at caselaw designed for lawyers (which I am not) and thus are EXPENSIVE so you have to go to a State University public terminal to use one; I'm certainly no expert.

Those are pretty cool, I wish they were in every county.

I'd offer to go look up precedents sometime but I'm not until this dang pandemic is contained.

[MrRoboto75]

EDIT: Tried to balance good taste with my deeds by removing focus on adult tubes as an example of sites under the gun if 230 is removed since really it's much broader than that; that was just my guess as to what's going down first post-230, as someone or organization has already done the dirty work the past few years with what appears to be a step- caption flood campaign that is otherwise difficult to explain.

I have heard rumor that at least one of the big porn sites (I think pornhub) recently did a large purge of their amateur content, presumably as a lot of people depicted cannot be confirmed to be of legal age, and since its just a big tube site you probably can't just contact them directly.  Tumblr ages ago removed all adult content.

That being said, I don't think step-whatever being common is some sort of conspiracy.  Step-whatever is just easy to make, you don't need any sort of special props and the plot more-or-less writes itself, and since they're related by step they don't even need to look similar.  It's taboo without actually doing anything too bizarre or unusual (compared to say bondage or something) and you could basically mute the video and it'd be vanilla.

[Duuvian]

I agree with that; there is a statute that requires all adult performers to provide a very substatial amount of information and for producers to maintain those records in a physical storage location that can be accessed upon request. It was recently challenged and modified somewhat to be a little less restrictive to producers (notably amateurs) without accepting their arguments for striking down the whole thing: the various crimes recordkeeping is designed to prevent were argued by the producers to already be crimes thus making lack of recordkeeping a felony offense unnecessary but the court rejected that.  I can't remember the statute code but it's always at the bottom of a porn producer's site to show compliance.. According to a Law Review article I read it's rarely necessary to enforce it due to voluntary compliance being an industry standard and I think I recall the article said there wasn't much caselaw if any regarding amateur productions though conjecture was that it applied to that as well though generally not in practice due to the sheer amount, difficulty, and low priority. However pornhub is massive and well known compared to most similar sites so it would make sense they would feel the need to make an effort to show greater due diligence.

You are right, it's more than likely not a conspiracy but it boggles how much flooding of that is being done. Don't really bother me tbh but I thought it might make those websites liable somehow. The backpage prosecutions were in State court, and state law varies on step- relations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction maybe dunno without having done the research on that or Federal (no real interest).

That said it's likely the least of our worries right now. It does bring to mind the Robot Chicken episode where aliens steal all the porn on Earth and a sobbing man emerges from his house with his pants down and George W Bush says "C'mon bring back our porn man. not funny" or something like that; BUT I'm done talking about it.

Tumblr ages ago removed all adult content.

I worked with a cool lady once who complained about this to me and I realized she was way cool. Unfortunately she also had a boyfriend on and off again. I don't know if she was a tease or if I was just obtuse though; she kept mentioning the Witcher series and now that I've played at least most of the first one and collected some cards I think I get it now a year too late...

[Akura]

I have heard rumor that at least one of the big porn sites (I think pornhub) recently did a large purge of their amateur content, presumably as a lot of people depicted cannot be confirmed to be of legal age, and since its just a big tube site you probably can't just contact them directly.  Tumblr ages ago removed all adult content.

I looked into that. It wasn't just their amateur content, they removed literally ~80% of their videos. And it had nothing to do with confirming the age of people in the videos, that was just the excuse they gave. It was all about controlling where ad revenue goes - most videos were "stolen" content or otherwise reuploads. People receive revenue per view, so if one amateur performer uploads a video, then someone saves and reuploads it, and people start watching the reupload, the original uploader is losing money there.

[sluissa]

I was under the impression that this was entirely due to the credit card companies getting pushed to no longer process their payments due to them having unverified videos and videos that are difficult or impossible to prove legal.

This has in fact happened several times in the past with smaller organizations, or organizations who are less deeply involved in that sort of thing.

Patreon a couple years back changed their rules to no longer allow the direct trade of adult oriented material for payments. (There's a bit of a gray area where you can ask for payments for unspecified reasons, and supply the adult material somewhere else, however they do occasionally crack down on people doing that as well.) This was also due to the credit card companies coming down on Patreon and threatening to no longer process payments for them.

Just to be clear, not really defending the sites that do things in a sketchy manner, or sites that turn a blind eye to users doing things they probably shouldn't be letting them do. But the credit card companies are known for throwing their weight around in this manner, and while sometimes it shuts things down that most people would tend to agree need to be shut down, it can also be used pretty arbitrarily, often painting with a wide brush shutting down a large number of people who are more or less innocent to catch a few doing bad things and there's not much that can be done to fight it if you get caught up in it.

[Iduno]

I have heard rumor that at least one of the big porn sites (I think pornhub) recently did a large purge of their amateur content, presumably as a lot of people depicted cannot be confirmed to be of legal age, and since its just a big tube site you probably can't just contact them directly.  Tumblr ages ago removed all adult content.

I looked into that. It wasn't just their amateur content, they removed literally ~80% of their videos. And it had nothing to do with confirming the age of people in the videos, that was just the excuse they gave. It was all about controlling where ad revenue goes - most videos were "stolen" content or otherwise reuploads. People receive revenue per view, so if one amateur performer uploads a video, then someone saves and reuploads it, and people start watching the reupload, the original uploader is losing money there.

Also, if I remember correct, pornhub had fewer child porn issues than Facebook, which suggests they were already doing a good job of taking care of it. But Facebook doesn't get their money from the same place, so they can do what they want.

I guess Mitch really wants to give Democrats more political ammunition in Georgia.

Is there a draft for a section 230 replacement or is it straight removal?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

I don't think people realize how important this law has been to the development of a free internet. It keeps people such as whoever operates this forum (not sure if that would be SMF or Toady or both) from being liable should something illegal be placed by a 3rd party on their website. The last time I'm aware of section 230 status being in the news was when the feds went after the notorious prostitution website Backpage, which yes probably should have been shut due to the existence of a black market leading to more widespread exploitation and mass incarceration.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/09/600360618/backpage-founders-indicted-on-charges-of-facilitating-prostitution

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/backpagecom-ceo-charged-with-pimping-in-california/287-333983236

Section 230 is an immunity law, which generally are interpreted very broadly, including for prosecutors or law enforcement duties. Once it was removed, the website operators were criminally liable for what others had used their site for. Not defending backpage's operators here because it sounds pretty awful, just saying that's the one example I know of offhand where section 230 was removed.

While there is no way to tell how a repeal of section 230 would be handled, does the idea of a foreign troll farm posting illegal material on websites to intentionally bring down platforms of their political opponents seem that outlandish in 2020? Could we say that either of the two major US sides would not gleefully send each other in front of a judge with this?

At the very least it would cause a dramatic redesign of websites that allow user submitted content.

Either way it's an attempt to weaken a free internet, which by the way is one of the US and other governments' great advantages over more restrictive competitors in that when a shitty self centered leader takes power the US public is better prepared to wage a political argument against the paid trolls; moreso with section 230 than without it.

How about instead of this, we do something actually useful for the average internet user, and make it so it's illegal for websites to harvest personal information for sale without consent, with no consent required to use the website.

EDIT: Tried to balance good taste with my deeds by removing focus on adult tubes as an example of sites under the gun if 230 is removed since really it's much broader than that; that was just my guess as to what's going down first post-230, as someone or organization has already done the dirty work the past few years with what appears to be a step- caption flood campaign that is otherwise difficult to explain.

The 230 stuff is a poison pill - Mitch doesn't want to take the heat for killing the $2000, but also doesn't want the Democrats to get the credit. He's hoping that sticking in the Repeal 230 (which Trump wants, because he thinks that would allow him to bully Twitter into giving him the proper worship) stuff will make the Democrats kill it and thus drop the blame on their heads.

Problem is that there's no time for the debate and reconciliation process before this Congress adjourns for the final time - the 116th Congress ends Sunday - and all bills die. It is literally impossible for this to pass, and everybody's going to make damn sure the voters know it.

All that said, most people do not understand what 230 does at all.

It's tough to say the Democrats are fighting for it, either. Out of the 11 people who voted for it, it was nearly even with 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Turns out, a different group of rich right-wingers doesn't change anything.

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. The Senate Democrats can't vote for a clean bill. Mitch refuses to allow a vote on it. There's no support for the poisoned bill that would kill the fucking internet, but that's what we want to happen.