If safe harbor laws are removed, is the internet basically fucked?

No. Just all publicly visible platforms hosted in the US and Yurop where users can post content will simply disappear. But this is yet another one of those suggestions that are very out of touch with reality. If one platform closes, a new one in a nation with less strict/no laws will be created that's completely outside of the US' or Yurop's fingers. It's like politicians don't understand the Internet.
Or rather, they hope that most voters don't - if it's the fault of chans, Reddit and "Others" that this is being openly discussed people will likely not think for themselves and come to the conclusion that disarming the majority of people would drastically reduce the number of fatalities during conflicts. And the NRA pays way too well to let that happen.

What this user means is "Please let the big corporations reign the web by raising the bar for entry to the market". You are fascist piece of shit desu user
You should be allowed to say what you want. You should not be allowed to harm others. Jow Forums does not endorse any sort of malicious behaviour nor encourage it. Users on Jow Forums may do it but that is their personal views and should not be reflected as the website's views. If a retard goes rogue and does something, that's his prerrogative.

>You should not be allowed to harm others.
Turn off your monitor you fucking snowflake.

NYT is trash with trash opinions
US will never remove CDA - everything relies on it, not just social media, any hosting

The EU already voted to do this with copyrighted content, it's only a matter of time before they extend it to everything.

>allowing the most normie tier social media to be the only websites allowed for use
yeah user, I can already see the productivity levels rising through the roof.
Because disarming people wouldn't work. It's a slippery slope that eventually just sees more and more regulation without any solution
>UK
>Ban guns
>violence remains the same
>import niggers
>Violence rises
>Ban Knives
>doesn't work.bmp

You get stuck in an endless cycle of more prohibition. California has basically made it impossible for people to get their hands on guns. Guess what state is among one with the highest rates of violence?

Time to setup that mesh internet people have been talking about.

>You should be allowed to say what you want.

You understand that Jow Forums is moderated and you are NOT allowed to "say what you want" here, right?

Physically you retarded niggerfagot tranny

>annen(((berg)))

Yes, it is.

Attached: Salman-China.jpg (2222x1667, 393K)

>allowing the most normie tier social media to he the only websites
Except no. That's not at all what the proposal is. That's the corrupt version. No safe harbour would mean its absolute destruction on that front. Virtually nobody would handle user submitted content aside from small scale where people manually handle the content. You'd make your own websites if you have a message to get out there. Like we used to.

so long as I respect the rules pertaining to each board. I can for an instance, call you a retarded faggot without any repercussions, and proclaim to have and defend any point of view, socially acceptable or not.

Forcibly shutting down US corporate news media would probably be more effective at reducing violence. They're basically fueling social unrest for profit. Both are bad ideas however.

>That's the corrupt version
almost like you don't live in the same world as I do user

>can't post your racist edgy 15yr old shit on an anime image board anymore
>nuclear winter is upon us

>threats online aren't real threats
You're gonna look back and feel pretty stupid about your immature thoughts when you're an adult.

This. We could test it for like 2-4 years and see how it goes.

you don't like free speech?

got it

And yet the UK's number of homicide victims is less than a fourth of the US one. But *surely* there's no relation to how you can easily be stopped by a person with a surdy chain if you carry a knife compared to having thirty bullets in your semiautomatic gun that you can't run away from.

Calling someone a retarded faggot also wouldn't make a site owner responsible for anything either.

This.
Personally we should have two internet. One for America and one for the rest of the world. Americas own internal problems and conflict are seeping out to the rest of the world over the internet. It's getting tiring really.

They aren't. I look back as an adult now with a clean conscience that everything I did was for the lulz and that if by some chance some idiot did something because he read my posts, that says more about him and society as a whole than anything else.

>And yet the UK's number of homicide victims is less than a fourth of the US one.
completely different demographics.

>dude ban all weapons
>dude police state

Maybe we don't. Because in my world you don't suppose a concept is subject to real world conditions without expressing it as such. Removing safe harbor laws is one thing. Excepting safe harbor laws for everyone but the big guys is not the same thing.

Suicide rate is also 7.6 per 100k vs 13.7 for the US. Almost as if not having easy access to an impulsive death machine means you might live longer.

The internet will turn into family friendly television, nothing cool, nothing funny, nothing original just the same inoffensive crap and crowd pleasing.
Degeneracy is the new form of the internet

>Not really. Forcing people to not go around with shit streaming out both ends is not "the end of everything."

Every site would have to withhold every upload of any type, including all comments, until a human moderator approves of it. Some sites do this already, and they are nearly useless. Huge sites like Jow Forums and larger simply would cease to exist essentially.

Switzerland has fewer gun deaths than the UK, and yet no gun, with it's citizens owning millions of firearms. Does owning guns reduce crime? No. Does not owning guns reduce crime? Again, no. If you understood false equivalencies you'd probably not come to Jow Forums and be deemed the huge tard you are. Also, nice ignoring of the Machester bombing. Does the UK need anti-bomb laws too?

What's the penalty for using those firearms, though.

Do it on any sub on reddit then. Or on twitter. It does not fall on the site owner's shoulders, but should someone get butthurt about it there, you will receive a ban, or worse, a brigade of tards trying to actively harm you phisically/socially because someone got butthurt

Can confirm.
Moots pissed about this and mods are fed up.
They keep talking about taking Jow Forums down forever

Attached: 1562036009840.jpg (1068x921, 106K)

>penalty
what

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

Nooooo, according to it's because the UK has "different demographics". (please shut up, we want the NRA to keep paying our politicians)

It's almost as if it's legal in most of Europe to own a firearm. GEE I FUCKING WONDER WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS THEN! Maybe murricans are actually the subhumans that Hitler was after, but he was wrong and it wasn't actually the jews.

Yeah we definitely don't live in the same world. I know that because I live in the real world where legislation has only worked to help corporate entities, never to dissolve them/induce harm to their objectives

No, bombs are illegal. They need anti-vehicle laws

>it's because the UK has "different demographics"
part of it yes.
Mexican cartels, gangs, etc

retard

Not sure I understand the tone of this post, but yeah, maybe the americans are the subhumans hitler was after. That being said, you don't get to take their guns

Germany already passed some laws that partially do this.

You honestly think there are no drug cartels or gangs in the UK?

retard

I think we're confusing different worlds with different countries in this conversation.
You can better yourself.

>These people have no idea of how internet works and should move back to their safe paper space
8ch is down and jim is being hauled before congress, maybe it is YOU who do not know how the internet works

hmmmm?

there might be but not the same size as in US. the UK doesn't share borders with Mexico or Canada though, so they don't have guns and drugs pouring into the country every other day

retard

I hope these laws destroy the internet. Was a good run, but all good things have to end.

>guns and drugs pouring into the country
mexico gets it's guns from the usa, not the other way around

also UK doesn't have over 10million ppl with no ID

that wouldnt clean up anything it would just force half the internet to shut down. they should be forced to be neutral though

>mexico gets it's guns from ONLY the usa, not the other way around
ha
you're funny
look at the map the guns travel north and south

Attached: is-america-a-country-or-a-continent.jpg (800x1105, 223K)

No we are not.
There is literally no country where the government hasn't aided especific groups to monopolize entire markets. You can bet your ass, especially with countries like Germany and how involved they are with social media control , that facebook, twitter and whoever else will get their bones for being a "good boy".

as long as congress does not ban pillowhonker from pornhub i can live

Free speech must be preserved.
Reclaim the web.
Fuck the regressive left.

How, they own most of the internet?

In mexico the AR15 is highly prized, all those come from the USA, no guns used in any mass shooting in US history came from mexico, you know you can just go buy a gun in the USA from walmart right? why would anyone take a gun made in the usa to mexico then smuggle it back to the usa?

ur tarded

Paranoia. We're clearly not in the same world then. I'm in the real world.
Unless you're arguing the fairly semantic point that any action by anyone will favor certain groups and disfavor other.

>would anyone take a gun made in the usa to mexico then smuggle it back to the usa?
because no serial numbers

you're a baby at this

he's right though, you can't find such a country

A congressional hearing isn't actually a trial. Unless they're about to be corrupt and break the law no personal harm will come to the owner.
8ch is down because their service provided decided they didn't want to associate anymore. And in their public explanation of this they showed how other sites they've done the same with are thriving.

the new york times should be liable for the harmful bollocks that is frequently published by it

that makes no sense, just scrape of the sn in the usa

no firearm used in any mass shooting in the USA has ever come from mexico, they are bought at US gun stores.

mexicans don't make guns, they buy them from the USA and it's a huge problem, we buy their drugs they buy our guns

azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/06/u-s-guns-used-majority-crimes-mexico-center-american-progress-report-says/301238002/

Yes, because they actually are responsible for everything they publish, unlike those sites they are accusing.

>keeping the posts on topic is censorship
wew, lad!

within 2 days of the shooting his site was down and he was hauled before congress

free speech indeed!

>the new york times should be liable for the harmful bollocks that is frequently published by it

archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html?mcubz=1

I am arguing from the standpoint the government will benefit especific groups. It's been the history of regulation for the past 2 thousand years or so, where the fuck have you been user?

>no personal harm will come to the owner

Attached: srsly.jpg (180x240, 14K)

Ask Eric Holder lmao

My old blog host was transphobic and took down my dilation instruction videos

FREE SPEACH WHEN

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

Yes indeed. Have you considered the rights of cloudflare? Can you imagine how fucked up your country would be if you forced them into servicing unconditionally because they're so lax on moderation?
There's worse interferences like google and Tulsi. But it's still not illegal, for the same good reason.
>I'm asserting that the government will benefit specific groups
In the sense that they consistently only favor one group? Which specific group?
The public may take vigilante retribution but what could be expected to be done about that.
Just please remember your expectations when you've been proven wrong and adjust your expectations accordingly.

have you considered the rights of intel? Really they should be able to look at everything you do with their processor and delete any documents you make with thoughts they don't like contained within

also your power company should be able to make sure you are not using their electricity to facilitate wrongthink or wrongsex in your home

CORPARATIONS ARE PEOPLE

Its about god damn time a reversal of section 230 and an enforcement the publishing rules towards the internet medium would once again revive 90s internet, dial in BBS systems that are private in nature, IRC servers back in style.

Attached: gogo.jpg (1200x675, 325K)

>routine americlap bangbang happens
>"quick, better scapegoat these inconvenient messageboards"
love the media, me

simple as

The further governments try to clutch the throat of the internet, the more the internet just moves to onion sites where policing, censoring, and draconian content ownership laws are virtually impossible to enforce.

lmao you're delusional

>those transportation rules
>those ammunition buying rules

See, very few on the gun control side say that there is no way for guns to be safe, it's that we don't want to put up with the restrictions to make them safe. That is a HEAVILY regimented society with rules everywhere beating it in that gun ownership is a duty, not a right. That's not something that would really work in the US since we revel in dismantling such rules. We have a "do whatever you want" attitude.
Without the willingness to take on social responsibility, there's really nothing left but to take away the means for the irresponsibility to inflict mass carnage.

that may be so, but that would be no different than a secret club, the internet as it exists today serves the purpose for commercial activity to take place. if you want to have a place like Jow Forums for example, you'd make a private BBS type service where you control exactly who has access to it.

but keep in mind, the borders are coming, so it will all have to be done within the country.

Shopping centers, amusement parks and public spaces should be liable for the things people say when on it.

>you should not be allowed to harm others
Explain to me how you "harm others" by saying things on the internet
Just turn off the screen, dumb nigger.

>physically harm someone over the internet
This isn't the matrix, dumb boomer

Read up the prodigy case

>which groups
The ones who lobby the most. Jewbook, Twitter and plebbit yadda yadda. The same usual "please regulate the market, but not us".
I agree with the notion the market should not be expected to make cloudfare agree to host. That being said, the market is not free and companies like cloudfare, google and a select few dominate the hosting scene. The ability to host as a whole shouldn't be held as a power of select parties; unless it's categorized as a public service, in which case they shouldn't be able to refuse then at all. Either allowing other companies to join the market or relenting of their right to refuse are the only ethical conclusions for hosting services in this scenario, which is not what is happening.

Oh man, the narrative over there must be even more overblown

I don't think people who say "this isn't how the internet works" knows how things have worked for a couple of decades.

TV is the best platform to compare to the mentioned sites. It's content is heavily regulated. To the point everything is passed through a filter/censor. Live TV has slips every once in awhile but fines are handed out to remind them to keep it clean. While it would kill the current revenue model of media sites, it's still physically possible for content providers to be required to follow similar rules.

>That is a HEAVILY regimented society
no it's not, it's switzerland

>See, very few on the gun control side say that there is no way for guns to be safe
actually there are very many like that. when my fellow bongs learn that you can get a firearms licence if you jump through a million hoops and have no mental health issues ever recorded, they're appalled.

user, you are stupid. Very much so.
Or autistic I dunno.

>NOOO I CAN'T POST MY RACIST GARBAGE ANYMORE FREEZE PEACH PLEASE SAVE ME

>censorship is fine when it's something I don't agree with
One day you'll be at the other side and realize how stupid you were.
Maybe you won't even realize it.

the media keeps publishing scapegoating hit-pieces like this simply because handfuls of people who frequent these imageboards (and wear it on their sleeves) always respond derisively to media tweets. that's literally it. the media wants the full force of the law to destroy imageboards because they always get mocked by the people who use them. incredibly petty but incredibly sinister.

just sit and watch the USA congress do away with section 230

>corporations are people
That status isn't relevant here. But I don't see how you can't sympathize with the idea that forcing cloudflare into service is wrong. I can see a moral case for that maybe they've got a duty to service within a timeframe of a major event like that. But that's really stretching it and the implication that infinitychan is protected because they hosted recent killers is odd.
>Intel analogy
That's not what's going on here. And I doubt anyone would think that what happens with your personal property which you hold physically would be the responsibility of Intel in the case of speech. There's been some similar cases to what you're thinking of with regards to firearm's. You can't just sell to whoever.
What's going on is more like Intel finding out (through the news, not by spying) you're doing shady shit with their subscription based CPU so they canceled your subscription. They've got no special insight. They're not pressured by an external entity right now. Its just their own voluntary choice to take less business (likely for PR reasons given their history).
>the one who lobbies the most
Except there's plenty of countries where lobbying is illegal and plenty of actions are taken with no clear corporate/industry winner. There's plenty of counter industry action within the US as well.
You shouldn't make such absolute claims when you hold such a moderate opinion.
>the market is not free
No market is perfectly free but there's plenty of alternatives to cloudflare. They admit that the business they lose take themselves elsewhere and do just fine. The daily stormer is a site that went through very similar events and they report records hits.
>cloud flare hosting as a public service
I'd love to see that in theory. It's just something that I don't think the taxpayer would put up with. Just like a PBS for social media might be too much.

>NOOO I CAN'T POST MY MULTICULT GARBAGE ANYMORE FREEZE PEACH PLEASE SAVE ME