User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-11 at 2:42 AM UTCI know I said I wasn't going to say this again, but can you people PLEASE stop falling for Captain Falcon's retarded trolling?
It destroys coherence in any thread containing any debate that's actually interesting -
2019-04-11 at 2:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny That explains why pretty much every American politician will line up to shit on whistleblowers, sure. We have a long proud history of bipartisan cooperation in defense of the MIC. But it doesn't explain why t2k1 and generally voters who support isolationist policy, who will never have the US military at their disposal, still condemn actions that could compromise US military efficacy. As far as I can tell it's just sentimentalism for troops.
I am being a whistle blower .. I'm just saying it's wrong to expose locations of allied troops. Just delay story then release it when they relocated .. that form of redaction is saving troops lives.. the redaction of 28 pages in a 9/11 attack is Manipulation of power -
2019-04-11 at 2:56 AM UTCLanny is a douchareno
-
2019-04-11 at 3:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Then they would be responsible for the same damage. Similarly when some dumb shit "doxxed" Zimmerman incorrectly on Twitter and some asshole arsonized the house, the person who platformed that doxxing was responsible.
twitter was responsible for doxxing zimmerman ?
like how they say facebook was responsible for what tarrant did ?
these are whats wrong with unternet. you dont take a pile of shit and use it as a gold standard. -
2019-04-11 at 3:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jυicebox I know I said I wasn't going to say this again, but can you people PLEASE stop falling for Captain Falcon's retarded trolling?
It destroys coherence in any thread containing any debate that's actually interesting
o we knew hes a troll, but sometimes trolls have compelling arguments that could misled the young and impressionable souls out there who are just eager to learn and happen to stumble upon this place.
we must prevent this from happening by countertrolling. -
2019-04-11 at 6:51 AM UTCTrolling was just pushing peoples emotions to trigger. best ones were multiple responses of showing discontent for the topic of Troll being the OP
you can't do it in every thread. you just do it when bored for a laugh or if you think of something that got spun around and derailed and people at least posting as if they're serious which sometimes no one is.
it's not something you really do in the middle of a serious subject.
that's why Zok is the real King Of Troll. fucking prick. and I think his is just a lust to stir shit up permanently then lock the fucking thread when it's heated up because "I don't want to have to boot anyone, this is getting all serious" when he probably used alts to fuck with people? -
2019-04-11 at 7:02 AM UTClul, I found zok's PI in a text file I saved. should start sending him shitty totse/zoklet memes
-
2019-04-11 at 11:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny twitter was responsible for doxxing zimmerman ?
like how they say facebook was responsible for what tarrant did ?
these are whats wrong with unternet. you dont take a pile of shit and use it as a gold standard.
Yeah Wikileaks is a social media platform for sure, lul -
2019-04-11 at 11:14 AM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 12:52 PM UTCKeep in mind that it's not a crime to publish classified material, only to hack it. That means these criminals are breaking the law on behalf of their respective criminal deep states, trying hide and coverup their own crimes, and they've now fully demonstrated that they have no respect for law or decency. All publishers are now in danger from these lawless tyrants.
-
2019-04-11 at 1:02 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 1:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Keep in mind that it's not a crime to publish classified material, only to hack it. That means these criminals are breaking the law on behalf of their respective criminal deep states, trying hide and coverup their own crimes, and they've now fully demonstrated that they have no respect for law or decency. All publishers are now in danger from these lawless tyrants.
Would it be okay for someone to sell stolen goods, regardless of legality? -
2019-04-11 at 1:16 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 1:16 PM UTCyall faggots need jesus
-
2019-04-11 at 1:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator It is not. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook are already liable for hosting illegal content if they don't take it down for example.
"wrong"
Section 230 lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.
"Section 230 is as important as the First Amendment to protecting free speech online, certainly here in the U.S.," says Emma Llanso, a free expression advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider (47 U.S. Code § 230) The argument goes that without Section 230, we would never have platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yelp or Reddit — sites that allow ordinary people to post opinions or write reviews.
It's "the one line of federal code that has created more economic value in this country than any other," says Michael Beckerman, who runs the Internet Association, which represents many of Silicon Valley's largest companies.
But Section 230 is also tied to some of the worst stuff on the Internet, protecting sites when they host revenge porn, extremely gruesome videos or violent death threats. The broad leeway given to Internet companies represents "power without responsibility," Georgetown University law professor Rebecca Tushnet wrote in an oft-cited paper.
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."
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change -
2019-04-11 at 1:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Would it be okay for someone to sell stolen goods, regardless of legality?
Goods and speech are two different things entirely; they can't be lumped into the same category in a legal sense. Goods are physical property. Whereas, speech is not a physical form, rather, it is a God-given right. -
2019-04-11 at 1:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny as a matter of fact, it is.
platform vs publisher is a US legal distinction, publishers are expected to vet the information they publish and as such can be legally liable for it, platforms allow end users to publish, so the platform itself can't be held legally liable
both are held to different standards and legal requirements -
2019-04-11 at 1:48 PM UTCI've never posted anything to wikileaks so I'm unsure of this, however I was under the impression that you couldn't just open a wikileaks account and post anything like you can on wikipedia for example. But that you would hand the info to wikileaks and they then put it up on the site.
Or am I wrong about that?
I'm sure I heard before something about assange having been handed a load of stuff, could've been the Bradley manning or snowden files, and that assange was apparently releasing them bit at a time or summing. If so then that wouldn't afford him protection by the communications act.
. -
2019-04-11 at 1:53 PM UTCyeah wikileaks is a publisher, they receive leaked data, then verify it, clean it and release it
-
2019-04-11 at 1:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Narc I've never posted anything to wikileaks so I'm unsure of this, however I was under the impression that you couldn't just open a wikileaks account and post anything like you can on wikipedia for example. But that you would hand the info to wikileaks and they then put it up on the site.
Or am I wrong about that?
I'm sure I heard before something about assange having been handed a load of stuff, could've been the Bradley manning or snowden files, and that assange was apparently releasing them bit at a time or summing. If so then that wouldn't afford him protection by the communications act.
.
Yes. Wikileaks is nothing more than a Bulletin Board System where publishers can publish. The real crooks are basically attacking free speech, and they're getting away with it. They are lawless.
