BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 
Another Casualty If Section 230 Gets Repealed: Food Safety Data
from the 230-protects-your-biome dept
I’m a latecomer to the whole “podcasts” phenomenon. I didn’t start listening to them until 2020, when the pandemic suddenly gave me the free time and the incentive to get out of my small apartment and go on long walks. That’s my excuse for only recently discovering “Maintenance Phase,” a terrific podcast that “debunks and decodes” the wellness and weight-loss industries.
Last week, I (finally) listened to a November episode about a food-poisoning outbreak last year among customers of meal-kit startup the Daily Harvest. I had good timing, as it happens: the FDA just released a report about the incident. According to FDA data (which may understate the outbreak’s extent), nearly 400 people were sickened nationwide, of whom a whopping one-third were hospitalized; some even had to have their gallbladders removed.
How did this outbreak come to light? The Internet. News outlets covered the incident after numerous people posted to Reddit and a social-media influencer posted to TikTok, all with similar horror stories. According to NPR, Twitter and Instagram users also contributed to the groundswell of data that all pointed to a particular dish (a lentil & leek “crumble”). By sharing their stories on social media, those affected were able to put two and two together, and to call on the company and the FDA to respond.
One thing I learned from the podcast was that, even though the FDA is the federal agency responsible for the safety of the nation’s food supply, when Americans report being sickened by food they’ve consumed, those reports go to state agency investigators. As “Maintenance Phase” pointed out, that means it can be difficult to see the nationwide forest for the state-by-state trees: Food-safety incidents in different states may all come from the same source, but the links between different states’ outbreaks may be non-obvious or slow to come to light.
That’s part of what made the postings to Reddit and other social media sites so important. Those platforms allowed affected Daily Harvest customers to share their experiences, connect with others – and warn everyone else not to eat the culprit dish, beating the company and the FDA to the punch. Important food-safety information reached the general public quickly, while providing data points about the scope, reach, and severity of the outbreak.
And Section 230 is the reason that could happen.
Businesses hate negative online reviews. That’s true whether it’s a major multinational corporation or your local dentist’s office. And for years, they’ve shown their contempt for their customers: first by providing subpar products, services, or customer experiences, then by trying to silence dissatisfied customers from telling others. They’ve pulled every nasty legal trick in the book, from claiming that “gripe sites” infringe their trademarks to inserting “non-disparagement” clauses in their customer contracts. It got so bad that Congress, which can’t even reliably keep the government running, took action in 2016 by outlawing these unconscionable contract clauses. Federal government intervention was necessary because businesses have zero scruples about suing their own customers.
Fortunately, however, they can’t sue the platforms that host those customers’ complaints. Section 230 is the law that immunizes consumer review outlets, social media platforms, and any other website that hosts user-generated content from (potentially ruinous) liability for their users’ postings. Yelp, Amazon reviews, Angi (f/k/a Angie’s List), Google Maps reviews: all of those platforms are protected by Section 230, which applies to both user reviews they leave up and those they take down.
Without 230, consumer review sites would be on the hook whether they moderated user postings or not. Businesses could sue for libel over negative reviews that stayed online. (Indeed, Section 230 was Congress’s response to a court decision over a defamation claim.) But if the site took down all negative reviews in order to avoid libel suits, then harmed consumers could sue them for negligence for removing information that might otherwise have warned them away from an unsanitary restaurant or incompetent construction firm.
Make no mistake, Reddit is notorious for hosting a ton of awful speech. When playing amateur detective, its users have been terribly wrong in the past. But this time, they were right. An ingredient in the Daily Harvest’s lentil & leek crumble really did sicken hundreds of people. And thanks to Section 230, Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok didn’t have to fear the Daily Harvest might sue them, so they didn’t have any incentive to take those posts down.
Online reviews aren’t just guideposts for other consumers. They’re data that can be very valuable in the hands of government agencies charged with protecting the public and doing scientific research. That might be food safety regulators investigating consumer complaints; it can also be the USGS tracking Twitter mentions of earthquakes.
If Section 230 gets repealed, the San Andreas Fault won’t threaten to sue Twitter when a user mistakes a dump truck for a temblor. But users’ accounts of suffering harm from consumer products and services would suddenly become a liability for the websites hosting them – so that valuable data might be silenced.
Without 230, as said, content moderation becomes “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” The only surefire way to avoid getting sued is to shut down the forum hosting all of that user speech, just in case some of the speech might expose the forum owner to liability. That’s exactly what happened the moment Congress passed a carve-out from Section 230 for certain material back in 2018. If Congress (or the Supreme Court) keeps tinkering with the statute, we can expect a lot more user speech forums, carrying a lot of socially-beneficial speech, to be shuttered for good. And that’s what really makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Riana Pfefferkorn is a Research Scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She promises this post is not spon-con for “Maintenance Phase” (or The Daily Harvest).
Filed Under: consumer reviews, fda, food poisoning, food safety data, health data, outbreaks, section 230
Companies: daily harvest
Comments on “Another Casualty If Section 230 Gets Repealed: Food Safety Data”
Fascism in America
Fascism is on the rise in America. The pushback against 230, like everything else the pseudo-Christian fascists the GOP pushes back on, is part of their overall plan to just toss out the Constitution entirely, all so they can have a fascist run nation.
Remember: the ability to sue people more easily, unchecked, is why folks like John Smith want Section 230 gone.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: If you or your platform causes harm to others...
You fucken deserve to be sued, anonymous coward.
Harm others, you deserve to be sued. What do you not understand about this, cunt fucker?
Re: Re:
If you post something that causes legally actionable harm, section 230 does not protect you.
Sounds like you’re the one who lacks understanding.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: When a platform fails to act on harm that it knows of
That should not be protected under Section 230.
That’s called distributor liability. The platform should not be able to “sit back” and shrug and allow harmful content to remain up when it has legal notice of the existence of harmful material.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Section 230 was not written to eliminate distributor liability
The asshole courts (paid by big tech) got rid of that distinction later on through stupid and incorrect case law.
Re: Re: Re:3
A statement isn’t defamatory until a court says it is, so a platform should be under no obligation to remove anything just because some person doesn’t like what is said about them and sends a legal notice.
Now, if you want to update 230 to attach liability to a platform after it’s received notice that content has actually been adjudicated as defamatory and still does nothing, that is a reasonable discussion to have.
Depends on who you are talking to, I guess. The authors of Section 230 are on record as saying it’s working exactly how they wanted it to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 ron Wyden has been bought out by Cato or whatever fucken lobbyist
Ron Wyden just said in 2019 that Section 230 needed to be reformed. Now he is apparently taking money from Cato Institute or whatever lobby group and reneging and saying Section 230 is fine. He’s getting paid by lobbyist groups, that dishonest mother fucker.
Re: Re: Re:5
That needs one fat citation, because AFAIK he have consistently said that “it works as intended” since 1996.
Btw, did you just defame Ron Wyden? Not much for being consistent in your message, are you? A tad mentally unstable perhaps?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Here is your citation
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
“The real key to Section 230,” Wyden says, “was making sure that companies in return for that protection — that they wouldn’t be sued indiscriminately — were being responsible in terms of policing their platforms.”
Wyden said this in 2018.
Note the focus is on platforms being RESPONSIBLE.
We have the complete opposite of responsibility now. Google/Microsoft are the two worst (Meta is better). Google/Microsoft will NOT remove any defamatory, harmful, harassing, doxing search results EVER, even if you have a COURT ORDER. They hide behind Section 230 and basically throw the victim under the bus.
Straight from Ron Wyden’s mouth in 2018. Now he reneges on the “responsibility” part in 2023 in his fraud amicus brief to the SCOTUS as he has been likely paid handsomely by Big Tech sponsors/lobbyists to spout pro-Section 230 garbage without any mention of responsibility.
Re: Re: Re:7
That doesn’t prove your claim. That is how it functions, and it’s how it was intended, so it works as intended. In other words, this isn’t Cox saying it wasn’t intended to function as it currently does.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
Here’s your citation.
In 2018:
Cox says, “The original purpose of this law was to help clean up the Internet, not to facilitate people doing bad things on the Internet.”
“The real key to Section 230,” Wyden says, “was making sure that companies in return for that protection — that they wouldn’t be sued indiscriminately — were being responsible in terms of policing their platforms.”
Interestingly, the Internet giants themselves — as well as Wyden — talk about the law as being rooted in responsibility.
They admitted Section 230 was all about RESPONSIBILITY. Not an excuse for hosting harmful content without liability.
Notice now in 2023 the amicus brief filed by Wyden and Cox do NOT talk about responsibility anymore. That’s what usually happens when you take bribes from Cato/Big Tech lobbyists.
Re: Re: Re:7
Press submit once, then wait if your comment is held for moderation. Comments with URLs are particularly likely to be held for moderation. Most of the time, they will be let through in time. Do not spam it over and over again, trying to brute-force your way through.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
In 2018:
Cox says, “The original purpose of this law was to help clean up the Internet, not to facilitate people doing bad things on the Internet.”
“The real key to Section 230,” Wyden says, “was making sure that companies in return for that protection — that they wouldn’t be sued indiscriminately — were being responsible in terms of policing their platforms.”
Interestingly, the Internet giants themselves — as well as Wyden — talk about the law as being rooted in responsibility.
They admitted Section 230 was all about RESPONSIBILITY. Not an excuse for hosting harmful content without liability.
Notice now in 2023 the amicus brief filed by Wyden and Cox do NOT talk about responsibility anymore. That’s what usually happens when you take bribes from Cato/Big Tech lobbyists.
Citation: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
“The real key to Section 230,” Wyden says, “was making sure that companies in return for that protection — that they wouldn’t be sued indiscriminately — were being responsible in terms of policing their platforms.”
“Interestingly, the Internet giants themselves — as well as Wyden — talk about the law as being rooted in responsibility.”
“I’m afraid … the judge-made law has drifted away from the original purpose of the statute,” says Cox, who is now president of Morgan Lewis Consulting. He says he was shocked to learn how many Section 230 rulings have cited other rulings instead of the actual statute, stretching the law.”
The founders basically admitted in 2018 that Section 230 focused on RESPONSIBILITY.
Apparently in 2023 in their amicus briefs, they reversed course and got rid of the “responsibility”.
Mostly likely because Cato and other corporations bribed them.
The tech industry today has ZERO responsibility. It doesn’t even pretend.
I didn’t defame anyone. Again, 100% truth, with citation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
Check it out yourself
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
Here is your citation. See for yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
Here’s your citation. I speak 100% truth – did not defame Ron Wyden.
Re: Re: Re:7
And are you going to surrender to a court who subpoenas you to defend yourself, should Wyden decide that Section 230 does not protect you and your statement is defamatory? Will you accept BestNetTech forwarding your IP address and all possible identifiers to make you easier to track down?
Re: Re: Re:3
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:3
And that’s how we know you’re just a crazy crank who should be ignored.
Re: Re:
Oh, sure. Harm others, you deserve to be sued. If you’ve been harmed, you deserve legal avenues through which you pursue justice – to sue the people who actually wronged you.
I legitimately expected this runaway troll to show up again to parrot John Smith’s tired old talking points, I didn’t think he’d be dumb enough to be this crass and vulgar.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: As I said before, in many cases, the law does NOT reach the person who harmed you
Because that person can be across borders, hiding in an unknown country, or it can be a group of people across the world, as in Kiwifarms.
So the platforms have a moral and ethical responsibility to step in and prevent foreseeable harm.
This is basic decency, and common sense. Someone the immoral heartless bastards here on Tech Dirt seem to lack…
Re: Re: Re:2
lol, mate, where’s your press release? Where’s your police report finding all the big fish that Masnick was supposedly protecting? It’s been five years since you started spouting your mouth, angry that people were insulting your mailing lists that were somehow being pirated (and not the content in your self-help investment books, or your Hollywood scripts, depending on which lie you feel like telling that day). And yet not only has any of the above materialized, despite all the alleged police and politician input you were getting, all you have here is an even worse user persona whose main gimmick is swearing.
If it was that easy to tear apart someone’s reputation you’d have done it. You’d have done it to Masnick, masquerading as the Big Tech lawyers like you threatened to do so, making vague claims about which lawyers have switched allegiances like you threatened so long ago, knowing full well that Section 230 would protect you and keep your identity hidden. But you haven’t done that, because you know that this “strategy” doesn’t work.
I do think it’s funny as fuck that you simply refuse to stay away, throwing around vague threats just to feel like an alpha male again. How’s that Paul Hansmeier fund coming along, by the way?
Re: Re: Re:2
We want a functional Internet, while what you want would turn the Internet into a gated one way means for publishers to sell various works, alongside other online store.
Also, the likes of Kiwifarms have very small audiences, and can only damage the reputation of someone amongst that very small audience. Only an person with extremely thin skin would worry about what is said about them on such a site with a limited reach.
Re: Re: Re:3
Agree, though to push back a little, the Kiwifarms userbase didn’t just “damage the reputation” of their victims and the “small audience” were adept cyberstalkers. 230 protects Kiwifarms itself but not those users.
Re: Re: Re:2
The remedy for harms caused by international actors has always been to sue in that country, as that’s where the harm occurred. Section 230 is simple: “Don’t shoot the messenger”
Re: Re: Re:2
The solution to that problem is not allowing plaintiffs to sue whoever is close at hand and has a lot of money.
https://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1986/06/22/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: The platform, by not removing the material, also HARMED the victim
It’s called distributor liability, idiot. Learn the law.
Re: Re: Re:2
You want to know how everyone knows who you are, John Smith? Because you keep trying to make the same claim about a legal term that doesn’t exist beyond the confines of your rape fantasies.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Your insults show you are fucken ignorant about the law
Section 230 does not cover distributor liability. That wasn’t the intent of the law. Asshole courts (bribed by Big Tech) put that in there so judges could accept fat bribes for siding with big tech and throwing victims under the bus.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ah, yes, back to the “judges who disagree with me must have been bribed” argument. That gambit really didn’t pay off when you tried to get rid of Otis Wright, did it? What was it you said? “Clearly the judge has it out for them, and has taken this to a personal level. He will be lucky to keep his job when this is all over.” Maybe Judge Wright should have you hauled in on a defamation charge. You’d like that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Someone is sure obsessed there. So many nerves have been struck.
The media and the feds have been well-briefed for months about what is really going on and how the dots connect. Why you think anyone would bother with a victory lap on a POS site like this is funny, people are still going to prison either way.
One day a very well-briefed news crew is going to suddenly appear in front of some people from around here. Hope they’re ready. Glad to know that corner office in your brain is still open.
Do continue whatever it was you were doing and thanks for the chuckle.
Re: Re: Re:2
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not the one making throwaway account after throwaway account just to insult a website I hate, John Smith.
But you keep showing up, predictable as ever.
You couldn’t save Prenda Law. You’re not going to win this war that you started and keep fighting in your head.
Re: Re:
Why are you so angry over a comment directed at John Smith?
Who are you, that a comment discussing another user bothers you so much?
Re: Re:
Jhon wants to protect only frauds, because he admitted he is one. He stated here a while back that he sold sham “books” on Amazon, for the purpose of scraping buyers/victims’ contact info for spamvertising mailing lists. He wants to be able to sue hosts of bad reviews so that his victims can’t warn other away from his predation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick should shut the fuck up...
And stop spewing his pro-Section 230 garbage. We all know BestNetTech is paid by Google behind the scenes to spew its pro corporatist agenda at the expense of public safety
Re:
I hope you enjoy the freedom to post your vulgar opinion while that freedom still exists. Because your comments are EXACTLY the kind of libel-lawsuit-bait comments that would force websites to take customer forums and commenting down after a section 230 repeal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: I would not give a rat's fuck if my comments were censored after Section 230 repeal
But somehow you’re worried as a cookie that your comments will be removed.
It’s mind boggling how your fragile little ego can be so tied with your trashy comments on a trashy forum.
Re: Re: Re:
They are not worried about their comments per se, but rather that there will be nowhere left to comment and interact with people of similar interests, because allowing comments would be too much of a legal liability because people like you would sue at the drop of a hat. Winning at great expense is a s damaging as losing at great expense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick has been spewing garbage and lies about Section 230
since forever. The guy clearly is paid by Big Tech to peddle pro corporatist/anarchistic internet agenda to harm the public and destroy lives, to protect corporate profits.
Mike Masnick biggest liar on earth, along with the EFF, Eric Goldman, Reason, Cato, and countless other immoral pro-tech lobbying groups who would gladly sacrifice public safety and sensible regulation for greedy corp profits.
Greedy pigs!
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
BestNetTech has done nothing but spewed BS and lies
To prevent our internet laws from being modernized to help victims of harassment, doxing, stalking, and the worst abuses.
BestNetTech, the EFF, Cato, and other immoral big tech lobby groups are the reason so many are dying from social media extremism today!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Reporters who have covered the doxing story have been threatened. The doxers went after trans women and became a big problem for the corporations who hired the lawyers who paid them. Then they touched the third rail and went after MTG.
Section 230 protects the doxers and many who defend 230 just happen to profit from lawsuits related to it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: That's exactly right, Section 230 protects the criminals
Section 230 protects internet criminals and the platforms that aid and abet them.
That’s the truth. Section 230 is government-sponsored tech anarchy that puts technology before humanity.
Section 230 protects technology from humans. We need a new government policy that flips this around and protects humans against technology.
Google makes 20billion of profit a quarter. I’d say sue the FUCK out of these greedy and immoral bastards.
Re: Re: Re:
Internet criminals use the internet. Should we sue every part of it that a criminal touches, because all of them are “aiding” the criminal in some form? ISP, infrastructure, platform, data center, etc?
Or should we just sue the criminal, instead of the makers of the tools used by the criminal?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 The criminal is often out of reach of the legal system, idiot
What if the criminal is hiding in the middle east out of reach of the criminal/civil system?
What if the criminal moves from country to country? Is it fair for the victim to chase the criminal around?
What if there are multiple people from different countries using the online platform to stalk and harass one victim? Does that victim have to sue every single one of them?
The ethical and moral responsibility lies on the PLATFORM to stop these harms. They should be allowed to be sued.
You’re examples are fucken dumb and shows you are gaslighting victims.
Re: Re: Re:3
So? Just because I can’t find the person that defamed me, I shouldn’t be able to sue that person’s rich family, who I can find.
Victims generally don’t chase criminals. Law enforcement does.
If you’re talking civil cases though, similar deal. There are a lot of civil issues where the offender is unknown or out of reach. That doesn’t mean the victim should be able to sue someone tangentially connected to the offender just because they are available and have money.
Um.. yes? Why wouldn’t they (or their advocate)? It is wrong that a person has been victimized, and they should be able to gain restitution from the offender if possible. Not at another’s expense, in the name of convenience.
I disagree, and your arguments so far are unpersuasive. That responsibility lies on the offender is obvious, but the onus is on you to convince me that your claim of platform responsibility is valid. You haven’t done that yet.
How, specifically, am I supposedly gaslighting a victim?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 You are leaving victims of online crimes with no redress
Hence, gaslighting victims.
If someone defames you or harasses/doxes you online maliciously, you deserve redress. The courts do not currently give that to victims because they do not exercise jurisdiction to perpetrators outside their state (a stupid, backwards policy). Hence, the only party that is in the position to STOP the harm is the platform. So why shouldn’t the platform have a legal liability to do something about it? They make billions of dollars from the harmful content that destroys lives yet have no responsibility? How does that even fucken make sense in any society or legal system?
There is not industry other than big tech that gives tech such broad immunity. Every other industry plays by the rules of tort law – as Kagan puts: why should the tech companies get a free pass? This makes no fucken sense to me.
The only supporters of Section 230 are those trying to keep the status quo because they make money but do not have to internalize the costs of any harmful content at all. This makes no fucken sense in any civil/decent/rational society.
Re: Re: Re:5
They make more sense than you, who would enable the destruction of the Internet. Do you sue a pub because someone drinking in that pub slandered you, and the local gossips spread that slander throughout the town?
Re: Re: Re:5
Definition of gaslight: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
“leaving victims of online crimes with no redress” does not in any way align with that definition.
I don’t disagree with this. However, the redress deserved has to come from the right place, not just taken from whoever happens to be available.
If I’m a victim of a civil tort in the physical world, I have to pursue the offender for redress. If the offender is unavailable, I don’t get to go after someone else just because “I deserve redress.” The reality is that I probably won’t get redress if the offender can’t be found.
But you seem to want people to be able to get their payout from platforms for no reason other than “they’re rich and I deserve redress.” That isn’t how it works in the physical world, and it shouldn’t work that way on the Internet either.
If the platform is actually involved in the offense, then sure, go after them. Section 230 is not going to protect them in that case anyway.
Re: Re: Re:3
What if the criminal moves from country to country? You really think that’s what trolls do? The same people you regularly denigrate as losers in their parents’ basements and can’t afford rent? Now suddenly they’re capable of consistently physically relocating, just to spite you?
If you’re going to rage about laws that aren’t in your favor, at least come up with a scenario that doesn’t fall apart from the slightest of scrutiny. Trolls aren’t SBF with money to burn messing with your head. The ones who do have the money will likely do much worse to you than say mean things on the Internet, and they won’t even need to leave the country to do their damage.
Re: Re: Re:
We should sue the city government because criminals use the roads to get away with their crimes!
…if that sounds like nonsense, that’s because it is. Repealing 230 is the same sort of nonsense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
BestNetTech is an immoral organization
That gaslights the real harms of social media abuse, ignores the social issues of online abuse, doxing, harassment, tries to sabotage regulatory actions, and generates false narratives to keep the status quo (outdated Section 230) to fatten the wallets of tech companies with no care in the world about the harm to victims of online crimes.
Bunch of liars is what BestNetTech is.
Re:
[citation needed]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Scott Cleland (Restore US Institute) tells it like it is
US internet has become a lawless anarchy where criminals and doxers thrive while normal people get hurt with no recourse.
https://riponsociety.org/article/section-230-is-the-counter-productive-u-s-policy-and-law-that-makes-big-tech-unaccountable/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Guess which lawyers defend the doxers.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick says he believes in Freedom of Speech...
Yet he has tried to censor my posts (exposing the truth and exposing his true intentions) several times, and apparently “Free speech” is only when you agree with his lies.
Re:
No, Mike had nothing to do with it. It was us, the users, who are hiding (not silencing) your posts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Liar Masnick is trying to censor me again
These assholes on Tech Dirt do not actually believe in “Free Speech”. They only believe in speech that agrees with their vile corporatist agenda.
They are now trying to censor me, these fags.
These are some crazy comments
The attack against Section 230 and the attack against NYT vs Sullivan are isomorphic. Each represents a sharp attack against basic freedom of expression protected by the 1st Amendment. The effect of both is to make publishers fully liable for everything they publish.
1) Eliminating Section 230 eliminates protection for social publishers who publish large volumes of user contributed speech. They must police speech to search for all forms of restricted speech and censor that speech.
This also has the very serious side effect of creating and maintaining a new list of “restricted speech”, something the Twitter files seem to reveal is already well underway.
Whether this new list of “restricted speech” that social publishers would need to screen for would include defamatory speech is beyond my pay grade, but it seems overturning NYT vs Sullivan would add defamatory speech to that list.
And as BestNetTech has repeatedly made the case, content moderation at that scale is already a full time job with Section 230 in place. Eliminating Section 230 would force all social media operating in the US to completely retool their systems and either hire an enormous amount of moderation staff, or drastically limit user submitted content.
2) Overturning NYT vs Sullivan eliminates protection for journalists against unknowingly defaming a public figure.
How does a journalist “unknowingly” defame a public figure? By citing an unverified source.
This would make a news outlet liable for anything their journalists publish. The establishment already frames certain sources as contentious or questionable.
Large news outlets (with legal departments) whose journalists cite those sources may or may not be accused of defamation.
But small, independent journalists who cite these sources will be easy pickings.
So if Xinhua runs a sparesly documented story about a US CEO comitting fraud in China and citing only Chinese sources, an indepedent journalist in the US citing Xinhua is open to being sued by the CEO.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Your justification for Section 230 only considers the corporations
and completely ignores the plight of victims who have no redress against mob harassment, doxing, stalking and other types of harms online where the only redress is to hold the platform accountable because the individuals are scattered globally.
Again, lies lies and lies.
The world is tired of US policy/Section 230 putting corporate interest ahead of public safety.
Re: Re:
Section 230 protects your ability to post online, as without it I doubt that this and other small blogs would allow comments. Only the big social media sites would have any hope of staying up without section 230, but their automatic filtering of content would become extreme, and almost certainly block your angry rants.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Freedom of expression does NOT give you a right to...
harass, stalk, dox, and cause harm to individuals by using “speech” in abusive manners.
The problem with America is some idiots believe “freedom” means the right to harm others without repercussions.
First Amendment should be balanced with other rights. It should not be absolute because that would lead to harms and anarchy.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
Re: Re: Silence the victim
Freedom of expression gives you the right to be as abusive as you like. But if you cross the line into harassment, stalking, and doxing, the redress for this already exists.
It is called “flagging” content for removal by the site, followed by notifying law enforcement. The existing laws and the existing interpretation of Section 230 are just fine for this.
But your solution for “the plight of victims who have no redress against mob harassment, doxing, stalking and other types of harms online” is to stifle everyones freedom of speech, including the speech of these victims.
Anyway where is this epidemic of mob harassment, doxing, and stalking you speak of? Got a source?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: The current laws against online harassment are toothless...
The laws currently against online harassment are essentially toothless:
The USA needs FEDERAL/nationwide laws against online harassment. Currently, residents in some states are more protected than others – this is not right. We need uniform standards that deal with jurisdiction. The victim and perpetrator may not be in the same jurisdiction at all, but this doesn’t lessen the harm.
Re: Re: Re:2 Overseas harassment?
I’m actually with you on the spirit of these points, but repealing Section 230 is a one-size-fits-all solution that will restrict expression, not protect it.
1) Are you seriously suggesting that overseas harassment online is a big enough issue that US citizens online speech should be rigorously policed and restricted?
2) Kiwifarms. Didn’t you post a link to the Ripon Society? Somehow I don’t think the Ripon Society cares too much about trans folks being doxed! I actually agree that we could enact better laws at the federal level to address online doxing and stalking. But eliminating Section 230 protections for publishers is not the way to do it.
The 1st aendment is the FIRST amendment for a reason. The 1st amendment allows the expression of all ideas, even offensive ones such as anti-trans bigotry, Nazism, and Christian nationalism. Who in their right mind would trust idiots in Washington to decide what speech is allowed and what speech is disallowed? Just another arena for governments to overregulate and then the policies will flip flop every few years when the “other” party comes into power.
And you missed my point earlier. The Twitter Files reveal this is already well underway. Speech on social media during the election and the pandemic that disagreed with government narratives is already being policed. You sure you’re not just jealous that only one party seems to wield this power?
Rather than laying new layers of mandated corporate and government policing of speech, a better solution would be to grant ISP’s Common Carrier status, then grant social media sites Common Carrier status. That way everyone is guaranteed their communications will reach their intended recipient or audience. The same way UPS, Fedex, USPS, and the POTS telephone system already work. Then corporate censorship of Your Favoritge Right Wing Narrative becomes a federal crime.
3) This is an excellent point but seemingly very little to do with Section 230.
4) The only ones talking to judges are people with money, not working class victims of harassment. What you suggest here is a structural problem with our government & again I don’t see the relevance to Section 230. Repealing 230 without a well reasoned replacement would stifle everyone’s expression in order to protect the rights of the few. Didn’t Benjamin Franklin have something to say about “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety”? And you are right, judges and politicians are notoriously ignorant of technology, like the folks at the Ripon Foundation seem to be.
I’m all for protecting victims of stalking and harassment a little better. Yet you seem to think the only way to accomplish this is to open the floodgates for lawsuits by technical changes to the way speech on the internet works.
But the only people who can file lawsuits are people with money. That is one thing that won’t change anytime soon. So who do these changes really protect?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Very simply put - if you want to keep Section 230...
…then SIGNIFICANTLY strengthen our criminal laws to cover all types of cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking, and create FEDERAL regulation that protects true victims and that does not suffer jurisdictional issues. Make these laws strong and allow police/courts to actually go after the criminals. If you can do this, I’m ok with keeping Section 230. The problem is cyberharassment is NOT a federal crime, it’s more of state-by-state tort which is not even clearly defined, and like I said, suffer from numerous legislative loopholes that are just stupid (for example, a victim in State A cannot sue someone in another country if that person uses the internet to stalk the victim in State A – under the stupidly arcane “purposeful availment” test, which makes no sense for harmful internet torts.
Our legal system is just stupid right now with regard to internet crimes. The judges are stuck in an analogue era where everything has to analogized to pagers, horses, and buggies and they do not understand how stalkers currently use modern technology to harm victims. The Supreme Court is partially to blame for this, as is Congress.
So either strengthen all cyberharassment laws to criminalize them federally (which then Section 230 doesn’t apply), or reform Section 230 so victims can turn to ISPs for redress. One way of another, people in the USA deserve protection from modern cybercrimes and privacy invasions.
Re: Re: Re:4
So, seeing that Kiwifarms was taken down successfully while Section 230 exists, the laws are clearly strong enough and are allowed to go after criminals.
In your own words, chumley. Not mine.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Kiwifarms is still up fucker, and indexed by Bing, all thanks to Section 230's
immoral protections for unlawful content and the platforms that aid and abet cyber terrorism.
Re: Re: Re:6
I thought you said Kiwifarms was taken down and your team had won? So which is it? Is the site down or not? You don’t get to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with this Schrodinger’s website.
Re: Re: Re:4 online censorship is a liberal game and republicans want in
You speak of torts, yet torts are civil. But what you are talking about are criminal matters.
This is the core of why the social publisher is the wrong place to look for liability. You are asking a company that transacts in user content on the scale of the post office or UPS, to open and read or inspect every package or letter it delivers. And if they can’t do that, you suggest we simply shouldn’t have public electronic communication on this scale. Because that will be the immediate effect of repealing Section 230.
Public communication of this volume is public speech and I agree that it should have far more 1st amendment protection than it does. The Twitter files have cemented this for me. The amount of signal throttling and narrative policing already happening at the behest of both government and corporation is out of control.
So the Ripon Society can take heart: there are clearly lots of limousine liberal democrats who would love to see online speech policed. The same ones policing narratives on Twitter, the same ones trying to intimidate Matt Taibbi in yesterday’s congressional hearing. It’s nice to see a couple republicans claim to care about free speech for a change. But I highly doubt “free online speech” will be a plank of the GOP platform anytime soon. Both parties have more than enough politicians who wear their cultural and technological illiteracy like a badge of courage.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 The "rights of the few" deserve to be protected
Anyone can be victim of cybercrime. Why doesn’t the “rights of the few” deserve protecting? If you don’t protect them, are they “rights even”? Repealing Section 230 to allow carveouts for stalking, doxing, and online harassment in NO WAY impacts legitimate “free speech”. The fact that you keep telling me somehow “free speech” will be impacted is a straw man/red herring – a real clampdown on online harassment has no real impact on legitimate, good-intentioned Free Speech. Europe has GDPR and the internet is vibrant there. I don’t see any correlation whatsoever, because there is none. You’re making shit up to justify keeping internet in a state of anarchy.
Re: Re: Re:4
You don’t know what GDPR is it seems, you also don’t understand how most of Europe and the EU deals with free speech and taking down content. The US situation is unique because of the 1st amendment, no other country have such a law that expressly forbids the government to regulate speech in any way. Most other countries allows the government to write laws that regulate speech.
Almost all countries in Europe have laws that mimics the 1A and section 230 but they are written very differently (and sometimes poorly). The general rule is that the only time 3rd party liability plays a role is when a platform knowingly spreads “questionable/illegal” content, just like how 230 doesn’t protect a site in the US doing the same and that also means that anyone trying to sue a site in Europe will be informed by their lawyer that it is a very expensive and a very bad idea which drastically cuts down on the number of nuisance suits.
If you don’t understand the basics of how the different jurisdictions handle liability on the internet, using them as some example to bludgeon section 230 is just plain idiotic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Europe cares much more about humanity than the USA that's for sure...
EU cares about humanity and consumer safety and privacy. They crack down hard on online abuse and protect user privacy in multiple ways.
In the USA, humans don’t have rights. Humans are chattel, subservient to corporations that Tech Dirt so supports.
I suggest you read here. Americans have no “rights” online. The government and Supreme Court apparently want people to be harassed, doxed, and stalked without redress. They get high off seeing people suicide.
https://restoreusinstitute.org/docs/Why-are-Americans-losing-liberties-and-their-rights-RUI-2-3-23.pdf
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s almost like you glossed over the explanation why that is.
Yeah, no one takes you seriously when you just make shit up and lie.
Then take that up with the government and the Supreme Court, you behaving like a rabid lunatic here doesn’t make a lick of difference. You are screaming impotently into the void while we declare you an idiot suffering from a reality disjunction.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Ok, please tell me how I can set up a 60 minute Zoom conversation with the Luddite Supreme court?
Do they have email? Or do they use discord? Or how can I reach them?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 I'm telling 100% truth - truth hurts.
“Yeah, no one takes you seriously when you just make shit up and lie.”
I’ve told nothing but the truth and only the truth. Like it or not the truth hurts idiot.
Re: Re: Re:8
So, explain this nut-case theory of yours which you say is true, that humans in the US have no rights and they are all chattel. Use as many words as you want and we will blithely ignore them.
Re: Re: Re:4
Whines the perpetrator of cybercrime.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 If overseas harassment is not covered then what actual use are the laws?
If a resident of say California cannot sue in California a perpetrator in an another country who used a US platform to dox and harass and stalk him online, what use are the “cyberstalking” laws in California? Does the internet stop at a state border (which is what current law stupidly assumes)? The amount of ignorance behind these current laws are just stupid, and clearly written by lawmakers who have no clue how the internet works and have never experienced online harassment themselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Why is malicious, harassing/stalking "expression" even worth protecting?
I just don’t understand for the hell of me why the fuck do you think malicious, harassing/doxing “expression” by mentally ill criminals is worth protecting? These fags belong in cages, fed grime and dog food, they don’t deserve “right”, and certainly not the same rights as innocent victims.
Re: Re: Re:4
No one is saying that. However, the platform holder doesn’t magically become responsible for how people misuse it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Cui bono?
Re: Re: Re:2
And you’d better hope it stays that way, because then China, North Korea, etc can start suing the US for making content they disagree with available on a global scale. Jurisdiction has always been an important thing because it stops litigious nutjobs like you from steamrolling their way through civil society because your genitalia weren’t stimulated enough.
You realize that other countries that don’t have Section 230 also have all of the above, right? And those countries don’t order the destruction of forums for stalking.
This is a standard of law and not something that Section 230 is responsible for putting in place. For someone who bitches about people abusing anonymity to shitpost about other people, you seem to have absolutely no problem with anonymous people filing multiple frivolous lawsuits and having no protection against that.
Or to use your own points as evidence against you, the lawsuit that took down Kiwifarms succeeded despite the fact that Section 230 exists.
Because the fact is that Section 230 is not a shield against illegal activity, it’s a shield against being sued as collateral damage. In the same way that SOPA wasn’t needed to take down Megaupload, or FOSTA wasn’t needed to take down Backpage.
Every time you insist that a law is needed, or a protection must be removed, to achieve the end goals you want, it sure is funny how all of those goals end up getting met without any of the legal changes you demanded.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Kiwifarms is still up, bro, and it took YEARS for Cloudfare to boot them
Cloudfare didn’t give a fuck how many people died. Immoral asshole Cloudfare waited YEARS and dozens of suicides and a massive Twitter campaign to boot Kiwifarms, and only because it was worried about bad PR and its stock price, not out of decency and civility.
Had Section 230 not been there, Kiwifarms would have been booted in 1 day, because victims could then SUE cloudfare for enabling terrorism.
Re: Re: Re:4
Had section 230 not been there, Cloudfare would’ve avoided learning anything about the content on their websites like the plague, because it avoids liability that way, and Kiwifarms would still be up. Section 230 incentivizes looking for websites like Kiwifarms in the first instance, by removing the liability for making a wrong call.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 and Bing still lists Kiwifarms, again hiding behind Section 230 to aid and abet terrorism
Bing is aiding and abetting terrorism, but it doesn’t give a flying fuck does it? Because of Section 230, it doesn’t care how many people die. Yeah that’s right, Section 230 basically enables platforms to turn a blind eye to terrorism, harassment, crimes, and stalking, and yet still make money at the same time. What a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckers.
Re: Re: Re:4
Realistically? No, because you’re not getting an order like that without a judge’s say-so. And removing Section 230 wouldn’t help you there, either.
So does Noah and Webster’s dictionary.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Section 230 has enabled collateral damage to the PEOPLE
The only collateral damage is the PEOPLE who are harmed with no recourse, and yet the tech companies sit back, shrug, and pocket the profits with no a fucken care in the world for the lives ruined by their own wilful blindness. The fact that this doesn’t bother you in the slightest bit is mind boggling, and shows you are a criminal psychopathic fucker.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Most lawsuits are NOT frivolous
Filing a lawsuit costs money too. The idea that Section 230 protects against “frivolous” law suits is total fucken BS and a red herring. Most lawsuits are not frivolous. People are harmed. Filing lawsuits cause money bro. Don’t lie to me, your pro section 230 crap doesn’t work on me bro.
Re: Re: Re:4
Filing a lawsuit costs… $400. Defending a lawsuit costs $100,000 at least. These are not the same.
Outside the US, at least they have loser pays rules. Inside the US they don’t, so frivolous lawsuits have a much bigger impact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: the USA online harassment laws are weaker than a limp dick...
As I said, there are various loopholes in US online harassment laws. Why do you keep saying the laws exist already? They do not? Strong and responsible legislation would also force ISPs to remove online harassment materials. The USA is stuck with impotent state laws that end right at the state border (oh yeah, cause the internet just ends at the state border), doesn’t cover doxing/stalking/mob conspiracy that don’t contain direct imminent threats, do not allow victim to use pseudonym to file a lawsuit, and generally just contain a bunch of loopholes that render it ineffect.
And when the victim finally wins in court, he presents the court order to Google/Bing for content removal, they ignore it, hiding behind Section 230. So state laws cannot force Bing/Google to de-index, because Section 230 has been interpreted so broadly it prevents victims for forcing search engines to comply.
Does that fucken seem fair to you? It’s mind-boggling you think this current status-quo is in any way reasonable – it’s outright a mockery of plaintiff’s rights.
Re: Re: Re:2
Except ISPs wouldn’t be responsible for that, either. At best what you’re asking for seems to be going after a webhost of a site for doing so, and… well, all that’s going to do is incentivize websites to no longer get hosted in the US. Your attempt at blaming ISPs for this is yet again another workaround at suing anyone and everyone until you get what you want.
And if you thought the current situation was bad, wait until rich, powerful magnates and celebrities have access to that level of unchecked power and can demand the destruction of ISPs and webhosts to silence critiques.
Re: Re:
Please point to the internet cable and tell us where BestNetTech touched you…
Re: Re:
The only person harassing and using speech in an abusive manner in this thread… is you.
No wonder you hate Section 230. You want to attack, harass, stalk, and abuse BestNetTech… and then let people sue them for it.
And it’s funny that you whine about what you falsely say is BestNetTech trying to “censor” you, when what you DEMAND in the removal of 230 is forcing websites to have a much greater hand in stifling speech like your abuse and harassment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: If BestNetTech enables harassment and refuses to remove harassment
Then it fucken deserves to be sued. Basic common sense moron. You hurt others you go to court. Stupid fucken common sense.
Re: Re: Re:2
So, BestNetTech deserves to be sued because they’re allowing you to harass people? And you’re going to harass people until BestNetTech gets sued for your harassment?
How the fuck does that make any sense at all?
If you’re so against harassment, why are you the main purveyor of harassment here?
Re: Re: Shooting the messenger
Where have these companies harassed, stalked, doxxed, or caused harm to individuals?
Has someone been watering the mushroom compost again, because another fun guy has just popped up 🙁
Re:
To offer some context for anyone who hasn’t connected the dots, F230 is the latest pseudonym for a long-time BestNetTech troll known to older regulars as Weird Harold, The Anti-Mike, horse with no name, MyNameHere, Just Sayin’, Whatever, John/John Smith, as well as other assorted names he’s used in the past to avoid detection. Torrentfreak readers will recognize him as bobmail, fitta, among other pseudonyms.
Before he started going on his anti-Section 230 screeds, John Smith’s main gimmick was speaking in support of harsher copyright enforcement and penalties. Copyright that lasts forever minus a day, fines greater than $150K, that sort of thing. He regularly pulled out all the typical pro-copyright tropes: YouTube is a disaster for creators because it lets kids make shitty content, asking copyright holders to have actual evidence before suing people would create a paradise for piracy, etc.
His descent into madness started in 2013 when the machinations of Prenda Law started to unravel, because the judges overseeing the cases started to pay attention to the trio of copyright trolls and their harassment of innocent victims for porn money. He spoke at length about this, declaring that the judges were biased and anti-copyright, that criminalizing what the Prenda lawyers were doing would spell doomsday for content creation, and so on. Of course he was nowhere to be found when the Prenda principals, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, were found guilty, arrested and imprisoned.
From 2013 to 2016 he swapped between horse with no name, Just Sayin’, Whatever and MyNameHere as his nicknames, before resurfacing in late 2018 under the name John Smith (occasionally misspelled as Jhon Smith), where he declared that he was a starving author who made his money from sending out mailing lists to subscribers. He claimed that pirates stole this mailing list information, preventing him from making any money, and the people behind the piracy were too powerful for the police to touch. So he retreated to Hollywood, where according to him he writes for many blockbusters and enjoys the company of various women, who he regularly denigrates and claims that women are only capable of sleeping their way into success. He’s listed many verbal and sexual harassment cases, claiming that Section 230 enabled all of them, never mind that the bulk of the cases he cited took place before the Internet entered mainstream use or that the cases happened in countries that don’t have Section 230 protection to begin with. He’s also insisted that BestNetTech is the site of massive financial fraud and a police investigation/public press release is imminent… since five years ago.
He eventually stopped using the John Smith/Jhon Smith pseudonym, but identifying him even as an Anonymous Coward has always been trivially easy, because he’s the same jackass who mentions Section 230 even on articles that aren’t Section 230-focused to begin with. The other thing that happens on occasion is Masnick casually popping into the comments, remarking that John Smith is going to disappear (again) and resurface under a new pseudonym (again), which pisses Jhon off like nothing else.
I do think it’s funny that he’s been reduced to actually carrying out his threat, using multiple anti-230 signed in accounts to scream and cry and throw a toddler tantrum, thinking that nobody can tell it’s him. He’s gone from the king of the world in his dreams to an edgy incel with Andrew Tate’s level of misogynistic fantasies. He’s the perfect encapsulation of a copyright fucknugget.
Re: Re:
You forgot the parts where he said all sorts of nasty things in the Prenda Law cases about the judges who denied Prenda Law’s demands, and then went on to claim that it wasn’t him, it was someone else using his name to say stupid shit. That’s why he goes on and on and on about how pseudonyms can be defamed against. He claims that the moment he reveals his true identity behind the “John Smith” name suddenly all the courts of the world are obliged to help him hunt down the people making fun of his copyright worship. That is the only dog he has in this fight, and why he keeps harping on defamation as the be all and end all factor. What he won’t tell you is the countless times he’s mocked women like Rose McGowan and Amber Heard for making accusations against men, because he’s a Weinstein sympathizer.
Re: Re:
Ah, I thought I recognized their particular brand of unhinged derangement, good I suppose to have a second opinion that it is in fact one of the regular loons rather than a new one.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Better than you stupid terrorist fucks who think "freedom" is the right to harass, stalk and ruin
Tech Dirt is an echo chamber filled with ANTIFA terrorist fuckers who think “freedom” is the ability to commit crimes against others and get away with it.
Tech Dirt is turning into a terrorist/radicalization camp full of First Amendment fetishists who think “freedom” is the right to harm others for no reason other than entertainment.
Fuck this this ass website.
Re: Re: Re:
lol mate, get over yourself. You backed the wrong horse (with no name), no judge will touch your case with a ten-foot pole, and you all but intentionally fucked things up for your team because you pursue the absolute worst legal theories. It takes a lot to fuck up defamation law, in the same way Amber Heard’s legal team did, but you managed it.
Unfortunately for you, people out there have very little tolerance for your type, who think little of suing people for crimes they didn’t commit and mock women for refusing to be your obedient little fuckdolls. Shiva Ayyadurai really was your best bet in trying to rape this site and you never got over that failure. You try to play the disinterested, aloof tsundere but you fail each and every time because you simply cannot shut the fuck up over the same points you parrot about Section 230, every single time.
The best part is watching you getting reduced to swearing like an edgy Minecraft YouTuber who watched Spongebob’s Sailor Mouth for the first time. Either five years of a lawsuit and press release that has gone absolutely nowhere has rendered you into a wreck, or you really think this hardcore Republican Trumplord persona is the natural progression from anonymous Hollywood savant. It’s hilarious either way.
Go ahead, John, make another claim. Threaten us more. Scream that once your real identity gets revealed all comments at “John Smith” become actionable lawsuits or somesuch. It’s going to be funny as fuck when your actual name makes it to the courts, but as everyone knows from five years ago, you won’t do it. You’re too much of a fucking pussy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 LOL, BestNetTech apparently is populated by shitholes and terrorists
who could care less about violating civil rights and only want to commit crimes/encourage crimes to be committed to others using the internet and hiding under the clock of the First Amendment.
The only shitheads here are people like you. The fact is, nobody likes Section 230 except the tech lobbyist fuckers, and that’s why it’s going to be repealed like it or not. Then victims can sue the internet companies, in addition to the actual culprits, who aid and abet harassment by leaving harmful posts up.
Every other nation is going this direction. If you own and operate a small website, nobody gives a fucken damn if you go bankrupt. You better make sure your platform doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights or you fucken deserve to beg on the streets.
We don’t need another 10 website forums for radical extremist terrorists like you and the fuckers on BestNetTech to spew their lies and garbage. We need accountability online just like offline. Basic common sense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 BTW, I don't know what you are talking about
Apparently you got the wrong person. I’m here to tell the truth like it is to what I think is a retarded, radical, extremist community and echo chamber full of testosterone-filled loser keyboard warriors who are afraid their websites will go bankrupt if Section 230 is repealed. Fuckers like you don’t give a rat’s ass how many people are hurt online or how many people commit suicide – you only care about your wallet. So that’s why Section 230 needs to die, so fuckers like you will be forced out of the caves and actually have to start paying the piper like every other industry.
Sue me mother fucker shitbag. Your case will be dead on arrival.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hmm, I’m a 41 SAH mom, with no website or business, so basically no profit motive, and my family is at most lower middle class.
Not a keyboard warrior, like I said I’m a SAH mom, no time for that shit.
As someone who has dealt with severe depression & suicidal ideation, a bout of anhedonia, I speak with authority that eliminating discussion/comment forums because a troll might do some trolling is going to cause more harm than it could ever prevent. Who are you to demand that I must give up the supportive internet community for face to face interactions which I sought to avoid in the first place? Who are you to determine what is best for me? Do you think shitty people restrict their harassment to online forums? Do think redress for harassment, bullying, stalking ect is easier to combat when it happens in real life? Should I be able to sue a bar because some scumbag customer dropped GHB in my drink, drove me home & sexually assaulted me, then left without a trace? Of course not, that’s ridiculous.
Do you have any idea how useful discussion forums are & the beneficial uses of social media? How do you think young people organized March for Our Lives event if it wasn’t for social media.
I turn to help forums to discuss my mental health conditions with others anonymously. I found comfort & guidance when I had trouble breastfeeding in online Mom forums. I get help fixing things in my home & on my car because I can’t afford professionals to do it for me. Have you ever considered the downside for these types of situations?
No, obviously you haven’t.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except for the part where you have never once done so in your existence.
Re: Re: Re:4
To be fair they (probably) didn’t say they were good at it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reality is BestNetTech is full of heartless motherfuckers
Who don’t give a rat’s fuck about making the internet a bit safer for everyone and finding reasonable ways to help victims of cyberharassment/doxing/stalking. The forum is filled with loser keyboard warrior single cis-males who have no job but starting websites. Nobody gives a flying fuck about your livelihoods if you make money on criminal behaviour and conduct.
Don’t worry, Section 230 will be gone sooner or later, shitbags. I won’t shed a damn tear for you shitbags.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Every other nation has the decency to regulate internet harassment
Except the USA, and instead of helping to make internet regulation better, Tech Dirt is doing its best to keep the US internet a complete crime-infested anarchy. You shitbags deserve prison.
Re: Re: Re:3
One comment hurled in your general direction… you hork out four posts of rant-filled paragraphs. I know you’ve always been easy to bait but holy fucking shit have you gone downhill like a has-been celebrity.
That’s precisely what you want, because you want the ability to sue others over the Internet to be made immensely easier.
Yeah… judges aren’t nearly as trigger-happy as you want them to be. They know that letting the victim of a traffic accident sue the government for the road they were knocked over on just opens the floodgates for litigious nutjobs like you.
And if you want to prove that a website or platform violates someone else’s rights, you’d better have make sure you meet the legal standard of definition, broski.
You first.
No, I heavily doubt that’s the case. There’s really only one sucker who visits this site he claims nobody else visits just to whine and piss and moan about Section 230.
You know, this has been something that you anti-Section 230 chucklenuts have never actually, substantially explained. Literally the only thing that sites will need to do in the lack of Section 230 is treat themselves as legally not responsible. They won’t moderate or censor as you demanded in another post. They’re going to intentionally avoid having the knowledge. Some like Torrentfreak will just shrug and ban comments altogether. That won’t stop them from making money. Your plan isn’t so much a “plan” as it is a hate-filled fantasy rant.
You realize that making it easier to sue people still won’t invalidate the legal requirement to submit your name to court, right? Removing Section 230 won’t magically grant you the right to sue anonymously.
Yeah, it’s almost as if Section 230 being put in place to prevent frivolous lawsuits benefits you, too. Realistically, I’m not going to sue you. However, under your proposed scenario of Section 230 removal, I could take your earlier claim as a threat:
And based on your requirements for the post-230 landscape, you would not have any form of protection. So you know what, if you want this degree of accountability so badly, you first. After all, you claimed on multiple occasions that revealing your name would automatically make anyone who criticized you liable for legal consequences. So why not do it? Put your money where your mouth is for a change.
Ah, yes, it’s the good old “all cis-males are scum” argument again. I was wondering who was the jackass advocating all sorts of transgender Rule 34 anal vore in the comments of late, turns out it’s the same jackass who thinks insulting Rose McGowan is the height of intellectual pontification.
You said the same exact thing five years ago, John.
Keep making the same, tired old threats. Not a single action will be taken by you, because being an impotent old fuckwit is all you’ll ever be.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Keep yapping your fuck wit gaslighting
Nothing changes the fact that 99% of the people on Tech Dirt don’t seem capable of common internet decency. For years Tech Dirt has done nothing but ensure the internet is a total anarchy and no laws are passed to protect people’s privacy, freedom from harassment, freedom from doxing, freedom from stalking.
You ought to read this article 10x before you make another retarded comment on here.
You people on this forum act like laws don’t apply online, and you should be able to violate another person’s rights as long as you wish.
Nobody in the real world care about the stupid asinine conversatinos spewing in Tech Dirt. It’s an echo chamber of cis-white keyboard warriors who believe “online harassment” and “stalking” are “free speech” and that victims don’t deserve any rights and nobody deserves privacy online.
Fuck off.
https://restoreusinstitute.org/docs/Why-are-Americans-losing-liberties-and-their-rights-RUI-2-3-23.pdf
Re: Re: Re:5
” For years Tech Dirt has done nothing but ensure the internet is ”
For some time I have dreamed of taking over the world, possibly you could instruct me in how TD accomplished this incredible task you claim to have occurred.
Re: Re: Re:5
You mean to get this “freedom” by making sure nobody is allowed to criticize you. Your demand is the equivalent of pointing at a building and asking the government to set it on fire because you think someone who insulted you is inside.
Laws do apply online, and you don’t get to play judge, jury and executioner because you don’t agree with the checks and balances that the law provides.
Nobody cares, but you insist that the conversations here are what causes harassment? So if nobody cares about the conversations here how do they convince people to harass? Which is it? Make up your mind!
Re: Re: Re:5
Oh look! Another asshole bitching about his ‘right to not be offended.’
Not satisfied with your purchase?
Fuck your feelings.
Re: Re: Re:5
Shiva still didn’t invent email.
Re: Re: Re:5
Needless to say, 0% of F230 aka Jhon Smith’s comment here even approaches the truth. Additionally, with regards to “common internet decency”, I’m afraid that you lack any notion of that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Bro, shut the F up
Spewing hate under an anonymous username, is all you know how to do. Which fucken loser spends all his time on BestNetTech? What kind of fucken loser must you be to have been on this pathetic forum for years? Do you even have a fucken life?
Repeal of 230 is SO fucken good – it will force dumbass keyboard losers to actually go outside and have face to face interaction again.
Re: Re: Re:3
Indeed, and most of the hatred on this thread is being spewed by you, while remaining anonymous.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, MURGATROID, Mike’s a MARXIST! Whatever shall we DO?
(Reminder that Mike is not a communist or a Marxist in any manner.)
OH NO! Mike’s got connections to… CUBA!!!!
(Reminder: The Soviet Union is dead and Communists are not a geopolitical power, and that ANY state that still claims to be any flavor of Marxist are, in fact, closer to being capitalist dictatorships. Or just plain dictatorships, in Cuba’s case.)
Re: Re: Re:
I note that you don’t even try to dispute or even address any of the assertions made.
Re: Re: Re:
While I am indeed quite anti-facist, I can assure you I do not fuck terrorists.
On a serious note, I genuinely hope you’re getting professional help for whatever harm was committed to you and for which you blame Section 230. You’ve listed a bunch of terrible things it supposedly enabled, and from your extremely bitter, venomous attitude I can only conclude you have suffered from one or more of them. While sharing your story honestly might gain you a bit of sympathy, you will still just be a single anecdote that does not justify a solution akin to nuking the whole thing from orbit.
Re: Re:
He’s also the only one who has ever posted clearly defamatory claims on the entire BestNetTech site, with his deliberate lies about lawyer conspiracies.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t know Jhon was involved in that Prenda Law nonsense! Maybe that’s why he’s so… unhinged.
Re: Re: Re:2
John Smith/F230 was not only intimately involved with his vocal support of Prenda Law, he was very disappointed that Shiva Ayyadurai failed in his lawsuit to have BestNetTech deleted.
What you see here from the F230 account is nothing short of deep-seated jealousy, anger and grief, lashing out at anyone and everyone. It’s genuinely pitiful.
Re:
Instead, Congress has unreasonably empowered random unvetted private actors with immunity to mediate all of Americans’ interactions arbitrarily for profit, surveillance, politics, power, and dominance.
What a strange way to frame ‘the first amendment and private property rights grant the owner(s) of said property the right to decide which speech they do and do not want on their property’.
Re: Re: it's been a minute
Sorry, I was trying to copy and paste point #7 the link F230 shared and frame it with some markdown on my phone – and failed severely. In order to critique the utter ridiculousness of believing that a stronghold of right wing policy propaganda like the Ripon Society would care about the “civil judiciary” adjudicating “fair and unfair”! Somehow I have a feeling its not civil rights they’re talking about.
Didn’t BestNetTech use to allow editing or deletion of comments?
Re: Re: Re:
Oh no worries, between your other comments and the fact that you had the text in italics I wasn’t attributing that bit of idiocy to you, I just figured I’d point out the fatal flaw/absurdity of it regardless.
As for editing and deletion not once it’s been posted sorry to say, ‘once it’s up it’s up for good’ is the general rule with very few exceptions like actual commercial spam so when posting anything but plain text it’s always a good idea to use the Preview option just to double-check before hitting Post Comment.
Re: Re: Re:
Just think of the fun the trolls would have editing their own comments if that was possible.
A time and amont that would need advanced mathimatics to count
Oh yeah, if sites had to worry about expensive lawsuits should a user post a comment that a company didn’t like it wouldn’t be a question of if companies started trying to bury any unflattering reviews/discussions but who was first and how many minutes/second it took them to start.
All 230 really does is make it so that platforms can afford to exercise their first amendment rights by getting garbage lawsuits tossed early and forcing people to go after the actually guilty parties rather than the easier/richer targets so ultimately you need only slightly scratch the surface to reveal that the attacks on 230 are in effect attacks on the first amendment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Why is the fuck is the focus always on WEBSITES and NOT on VICTIMS?
Why is your focus always on websites? Why the fuck do we care if a website goes bankrupt? If you can’t make your website safe you fucken deserve to be sued into hell.
Why is there no discussion for the VICTIMS and how to ensure they are protected online, just as in offline?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: We don't need another 10 websites and forums for people to spew trash and hate
We don’t need another 10 stupid forums for people to harass, dox, and stalk innocent victims. We need MORE CENSORSHIP, not less!
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Because it is abused by cybercriminals to cause harm to other
No right is absolute. Free speech should be balanced with privacy, decency, morality, and the freedom of others to be free from your fucken interference and harm.
Re: Re: Re:3
Says the guy harassing Mike for having an opinion contrary to his
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 It's not harassment, it's free speech idiot
Based on Mike’s own admission that “online abuse” is Free Speech, so he has nothing to complain about.
Oh I see, so it’s “free speech” when you BestNetTech dumbasses harass others, but it’s “harassment” when you get told the TRUTH?
Cry me a fucken river.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re the one threatening lawsuits, not us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 When did I threaten lawsuits?
When did I threaten lawsuits?
Re: Re: Re:7
You said it right here:
If Section 230 were not around, what you said above would be grounds to be considered as a threat, and your information would be doxed by the court for making threats.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, Section 230 is there to keep your idiocy in check.
Re: Re: Re:3
It does! It’s called THE CRIMINAL CODE OF AT LEAST 50 STATES.
Oh, and Section 230 helps with that, too.
Do point to examples of BestNetTech causing actual harm to people, Jhon. Meanwhile, you polluting this thread with anti-BestNetTech screeds are more than enough evidence for Mike to file a police report for harassment.
Re: Re:
Because websites are what makes the Internet interesting, useful and a means of people co-operating with each other across the world.
Also, given your performance on this thread, I can see why you have a bad reputation online, as you created it by you own behavior.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Interesting as in ability to harass others and dox others?
“interesting” websites is not excuse to tolerate crimes online and hide behind outdated legal shields, cunt fucker.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s not really the insult you think it is…
Re: Re: Re:3
Maybe he means “man slut” or something? It’s weird, that’s for sure.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Your reasons for supporting Section 230 basically amount to "let's sacrifice the victims"
Which is unfair and unacceptable in today’s world. You’re basically empowering online criminals and sacrificing victims.
Re: Re: Re:2
I suggest you put down the crack pipe and get help.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 I suggest you fuck off
And start telling truth about sectino 230
Re: Re: Re:4
Everyone else but you has been, crackhead.
Re: Re:
You realize that new websites are just about one of the few defenses you have against the corporatization and homogenization of all online culture and information, right?
If you’re so angry against large corporations running and influencing vox populi, one of the most important things you should be doing is supporting independent initiatives. The tradeoff is sometimes they say things you don’t like.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: And what about legitimate lawsuits by victims who have truly been harmed by platforms?
Why are you ignoring these? Which number far more than your so called “frivolous” lawsuits that you just made up. Very few would file “frivolous” lawsuits you’re just making shit up.
Re: Re:
If you had more, you’d have named more of these lawsuits instead of having the Kiwifarms case on permanent repeat.
Which, I might add, succeeded despite Section 230 existing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Manchild shithead Masnick trying to censor me again
Just shows you how facetious this shit head forum is…
Re:
My guy, your trash comments keep showing up regardless. Maybe don’t post your rants within a minute of each other and triggering the spam filter.
I await Mike finally having enough of your dumb ass and just outs you again, though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
BestNetTech is filled with gaslighting idiots
Re:
No it doesn’t. Jurisdictional limits, due process, the 1A, and practical limitations do. Victims don’t deserve to get redress from someone who didn’t cause the harm to begin with. (And no, being the tool used to distribute it is insufficient. In the US, the 1A means that the platform needs to have actual knowledge first regarding speech-related claims.)
To a certain extent, it kinda does, but even to the extent it doesn’t, that only applies to those who do the harassing, stalking, or doxing, not the owners of the place where it happened.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, they’re concerned with interpreting the law and the Constitution as it is. If you want to overturn the vast amount of case law on this, you’re welcome to try, though I don’t think insulting their intelligence is likely to help.
None of that proves that Cloudfare or Bing is responsible for Kiwifarm’s wrongs. This is just guilt by association. The 1A right to freedom of association protects them. Unless you can demonstrate that they took knowing actions that contributed to the unlawfulness of the underlying content.
I don’t know or care who Scott Cleland is or what Ripon is. This isn’t an argument.
Nope. Not penalizing internet platforms for the actions of others is not internet anarchy. As for being a cyber terrorist, that seems rather pointless. I wouldn’t really gain anything from it, so I don’t even bother thinking about trying. I just have no desire to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Unlike BestNetTech, Restore US Institute tells the truth
https://restoreusinstitute.org/media/
Section 230 has made the US worse off and lead to rise in crime, decline in morality, and loss of access to justice.
https://restoreusinstitute.org/docs/Are-we-better-off-now-than-before-Section-230-If-not-Repeal-it.pdf
Re:
Did you really link to the Restore Us Institute? Ahahahahaha
These are the guys that worries about why there aren’t more people having Judeo-Christian faith for which they blame the internet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Dude, Tech Dirt is nothing more than an echo-chamber full of...
cis-white male keyboard loser living in mom’s basement with no job and no life and thinking their “free speech” might be somehow curbed if the government institutes some common sense accountability to illegal activity online.
Only way you losers on Tech Dirt make money is through illegal activity, that’s why you’re so worried about Section 230 repeal. It’ll mean you can’t flaunt the law anymore…
Re: Re: Re:
Funny how the person complaining the loudest sabot defamatory material online makes defamatory comments about others.
Re: Re: Re:2
Every one of Jhon F250’s accusations is a confession.
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, I didn’t ask for your resumé.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: So compared to you guys, Restore US Institute is as legitimate as an ivy league university
BestNetTech keyboard warriors.
Re:
Crime consistently went down in the US both before and after the passage of Section 230, and I have good reason to doubt the veracity of the other claims. Given that it is so wrong on the first claim, it is quite dubious as a source for the others. In particular, the second claim makes it sound like it’s just another moral panic lacking in substance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Cry me a river...
Section 230 goes – haha so do incomes of website developers…. hahahahaahhahaha!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Gonna write another BS Section 230 pro-corporate article about this BestNetTech?
https://www.nexttv.com/news/sen-blumenthal-consensus-building-for-sec-230-overhaul
Society is fucken tired of immoral, unaccountable internet pricks.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The only thing in common about Section 230 supporters is that...
They directly make money off hosting immoral, harmful, and illegal content, and they DON’T want to be held liable for it. They want only the good and want to push the bad to the public/society at large. That’s the definition of moral bankruptcy.
Re:
Speaking for myself, I have never been involved with running any online platforms that host user-generated content, nor have the companies I’ve worked for. So no, I most certainly did not make any money—even indirectly—off of hosting immoral, harmful, or illegal content. Despite the lack of a financial stake in the matter, I still support §230 because of my sense of fairness and justice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Arthur Chu said it the best years ago...internet is a toilet
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/swatting_stalking_doxing_how_reddit_and_other_web_2_0_communities_broke_the_internet/
Reform/Repeal Section 230!
Re:
…said no thinking human being, ever.
Fuck off, spambot.
Re:
Why should I care about Arthur Chu?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Truer words never been spoken - internet makes money off illegality
Arthur Chu: “The ultra-rapid, zero-accountability Web we’ve built–the one responsible for pretty much everything Jon Ronson decries in his book— was created by a legal shift masquerading as a technological shift. It’s not the only time this has happened. The whole tech industry is largely founded on finagling a business model based on brazenly ignoring existing laws or regulations on the grounds that they simply don’t count anymore if you’re using the Internet.”
Guy is smarter than all you idiots combined.
Re:
Again, why should I or anyone else care about what Arthur Chu thinks?
You can tell AI is not true intelligence, as none the links spammed by the overclocked GPT instance above are ones any human capable of reading for comprehension and source evaluation could cite as trustworthy sources. Much like how Bing’s chatbot Sydney cited Breitbart.
Re:
Even out_of_the_blue was cogent enough to cherry pick from multiple crappy sources on the Devin Nunes memo article. Jhon actually thinks dropping the same source and swearing like a sailor will make his argument convincing. He really hasn’t gotten over Hamilton/Shiva Ayyadurai not returning his love letters.
Confused
People eat this crap? There’s no meat! Where’s the bacon? And the yummy GMOs that make things taste and look better.
There’s something wrong with the brain if you go against the mandates of reality.