Will it end the internet guys

can't wait for drumph's federal janny force to ban my shitposts

this but unironically

youtube can't just simply remove a video of mine calling obama a nigger, not without a fight at least

At least all will be equals now.

wouldn't that turn the internet into a mega shithole

there is no way they will be able to take the burden of doing all that work, most likely the moderation will be very lax to nonexistent, and that would bring the internet back to its wild west days

they have to be careful, if the internet becomes unfun, it could lead to millions in lost online revenue

they can just manufacture "fun". We'll have government controlled memes in 20 years

AMERIMUTTS BTFO!!!

Attached: this is america.jpg (768x768, 121K)

Well, this is just great, web 2.0 when?

>forcing companies to police user activity beyond removing illegal content isn't increasing internet censorship

Attached: 1556580949903.jpg (1080x1350, 1.36M)

He’s just distracting from killing his pal Epstein

Attached: DD27BC9C-B232-4B5B-A254-8A66EF9D71A2.jpg (750x825, 181K)

>omarosa
Lmao how much of her bullshit has been proven false at this point.

On the other hand, you could force companies to not police user activity beyond removing illegal content, which would be better.
And again, censoring corporate types doesn't matter. Uncensorable decentralized technologies exist, you're just not willing to use them.

What kind of person do care for corporate liberties?

Normally, I would, but I ran out of corporate good will a long time ago.

Attached: big-brother-amateur[1].png (669x679, 271K)

>be Dimwald Blimpf
>internet = twitter
>must censor erryone who writes nasty shit about muh on twitter.
>exec order to "censor tha internet"

Unless he vetos it when it won't get past congress or the house of reps (and I don't think even he is *that* stupid) it's a non-starter probably designed as a sleight of hand to make everyone forget about a suspicious death in prison....

Attached: Small Hands.jpg (940x627, 59K)

nobody cares about your literal who conspiracy theories. Go /leftypol/ somewhere else.

fake news

> it'll limit only limit how online services that are used by 1/8 or more of the americans can censor their users.
Have you read the laws they are trying to pass? It's only affect facebook, google (and youtube), twitter and the likes, and it's meant to reduce their power.

It lessens the ability of big tech companies to censor people. Anybody saying anything else is a FANG shill that wants negative press to dominate so we don't take away their brainwashing machines.

from what i read he didn't stay on suicide watch for much long, that was a total oversight but whatever

you can't really stop someone who really wants to die

>i say something you don't like
>must be /leftypol/

Fuck up you pissweak cunt.

Attached: reel_austrayans.jpg (1280x1280, 1.31M)

I've read it and I don't care.
You're being censored because you want to be censored.
If you don't want to be censored, then move to better technology.

Off topic discussions belong >>>/literally anywhere else/

So you don't have read what they are trying to push, but keep saying it's censorship because your corporate overlords told you so... I'll never understand americans.

Have you been following along?
I don't think you understand what censorship is.
In America, the first amendment only applies to the federal government.
Corporations can censor people on their own platforms all they like.
Forcing corporations to reduce censorship, is censorship.
Are you going to be forced to bake their gay marriage cake? Or air their gay concert on your broadcast TV service?

>Corporations can censor people on their own platforms all they like.
>Forcing corporations to reduce censorship, is censorship.
Now I can see the kind of corporate apologist you are.

A man who puts E all over his island and believes he has “superior DNA” that needs to breed with as many women as possible is too narcissistic to commit suicide

>corporate apologist
You have definitely not been following along and perhaps you should lay off the VB long neck, you stupid drunk cunt.
I'm these posts If you don't understand american politics, don't comment on them.

>leaked
>draft
>journos
THIS IS IT DRUMPF IS FINISHED

Attached: 1548837210041.png (800x750, 160K)

>Corporations can censor people on their own platforms all they like.
>Forcing corporations to reduce censorship, is censorship.
Sorry user, you've already showed too much support for corporations.

sure buddy, be sure to bake that gay cake tower with dildo spires tomorrow or I'll sue

I hope so. If I have to see one more twitter post of some literal who I’m going to shit!

Have you read the law they are trying to pass? I bet you don't... so I'll explain what exactly is going to happen if the law pass:
>1. Only services that are used by 1/8 of the US population are going to be affected. So basically Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter will be affected.
>2. It limit how this corporations can control content. It'll not impose any new censor policy, we'll only keep the current policy (CP, snuff, terrorism recruitment).
>3. It'll only force them to stop banning people for their "wrong" ideology, basically putting some limits on huge media companies policies.
This pissed these corporations, now they and the SJW are saying it's censorship and tyrant.

>It's a shame that we have to twist the law so that an arbitrary party in power can dictate freeeom of speech online all because private companies decided to police bad user behavior
Quick daddy orange, make it so that Hiroshimoot can no longer ban all the beautiful little pony hoifs feet in other parts of the site. It is the freedom of speech of everypony ^^^^___^^^^

Attached: 1561814269892.png (952x717, 317K)

>owns island devoted to his fetishes
>is suddenly confined to a small space only known to NEETS
why wouldn't you want to fucking die

Do you have any self awareness?
>an arbitrary party in power can dictate freedom of speech online
hmmmmm I wonder what this arbitrary party in power is, that is currently dictating freedom of speech online might be

A regulated internet is now required. You little bastards have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted to responsibly use the freedom it gives you in its current form.

Cringe

ok mom

>Talks about self-awareness
>Literal N/pol/C talking points megaphone
Right buddy, because political parties should be able to force Jow Forums to allow ponies in every board. Don't you see? We shouldn't be moderated by rules created by the very owners of a site--it's my freedom of speech and i am entitled to have my pony voice represented by the mere fact i use their services! The nerve to think companies should have a right to control what i say on their sites. Otherwise it is tyranny and censorship. You agree to this. Let's us fight together and give everypony his voice back with daddy orange's new order.

Attached: 1559906194909.jpg (500x639, 55K)

Companies would be forced to enforce universal rules, for an example if they want to forbid "conservative posts" they'd have to state it on their rules.
It'd force them admit they censor content or to stop censoring it.

Sorry that I don't pay any attention to your worthless group squabbling.
Maybe if I had known your TrIgGeR WoRdS I wouldn't have used them, knowing you'd dump a whole paragraph in response.

All I'm hearing is a lot of belly-aching from psychopath cunts who couldn't handle it when the buck was eventually passed back.

Fun fact: I work for one of the cablecos and there was a specific ask by the administration to be able to block individual devices inside someone's home network.
Naturally all the engineers thought it was a fucking retarded idea but the c-levels thought it was great.

>using ask as a noun
I'm sorry user, you've been infected by pajeets
it's terminal

Except that harassment, threats of violence, glorifying mass murders etc are clear violations of their code of policy and nothing to do with "conservative voices". Playing the victim card all because companies dare control shitposting on their services is not an issue of "freedom of speech", is the lack of integrity from bad players who want to exploit and validate reckless behavior unchecked.

>I have no argument but here's my shitpost
Wow this post would look great back in your containment shitbox Jow Forumssy.

Attached: 1550450545438.png (1280x1385, 1.01M)

I'd say about 35% of the company is Indian.

It's commonly used by management, Indians picked it up there.

If there was an argument in your shitpost, it was too long for me to read. Try avoiding self-inserting as a horsefucker.

So? Ill just host my own chan in an eastern counter

What makes lefties so creatively bankrupt?

oh no, the liberal echo chambers are collapsing

You cared enough to make a post defending him

telling you that your pandering to your invisible friends is off topic is now defending whoever you're against?
You're brain damaged. Your friends are a bad influence on you. Consider hanging out with people who aren't neurotic.

>On the other hand, you could force companies to not police user activity beyond removing illegal content, which would be better.
That would result in MORE content policing, not less. In order to stay "content neutral" without turning into a flaming shithole sites would need to put much heavier restrictions on their users, banning entire topics of discussion for fear of a few assholes claiming legal protection.
This whole thing is outstandingly dumb.

>Daddy Tangerine, please stop the meanies at Twitter from deleting my shitposts.
The USA's right wing has been losing track of what "free speech" means for a while, but this is a new low.

Just like web 2.0, sweet times.

That is a utopian end goal.

>he jumps on muh "conspiracy theories" rather than reading the context that is that even Drumpf isn't stupid enough to kill the golden goose that is an unfettered commercial based internet

m8, you're a bit keen to defend him...

please can we start again with yahoo games and shit

We're literally living in fucking hell. How fucking retarded was I to trust this orange zionigger?

>We're literally living in fucking hell.
The economy is fine, there are many jobs, living standards are in the highest since ever, US is safe, what's wrong?

Yes (and that's a good thing)

>sources familiar with their thinking say this is the end
Yup, sure is. I've never heard anything like this before and obviously this is both 100% factual and unbiased.
Thank god yellow journalism is dead.

I don't care anymore. They already killed oightchan.

Attached: thanks msm.png (1184x495, 46K)

>economy is fine
for the top 1%
>there are many jobs
for illegal immigrants, meanwhile white labor force shrunk by 3 million in the last decade and all the manufacturing was outsourced to the third world
>living standards are in the highest ever
people cannot afford to buy a house or start a family, their college dept has crippled them for life
>US is safe
it's not safe from invasion by illegal immigrants, which trump promised he would stop. not only did he fail, in fact, there are record numbers of people crossing the border currently.
>what's wrong
the fact that trump will throw you in prison as a domestic terrorist if you criticize jews on the internet

"The jews are a bunch of faggot"
Now, if your fantasies are real, daddy trump can arrest me,

"Free speech" does not equal the 1st amendment like you fucking mongoloids that say this shit seem to think. Yes, the 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from being violated by the government, but the concept of a right to free speech as something that should not be violated by corporations either can exist as well under the term "free speech".

I love seeing leftist defending big tech to show how they are resisting the orange menace.

>"Free speech" does not equal the 1st amendment like you fucking mongoloids that say this shit seem to think.
I didn't say it did.

>the concept of a right to free speech as something that should not be violated by corporations either can exist as well under the term "free speech".
Forcing someone else to host your views isn't "free speech". "Free speech" without the freedom NOT to speak is meaningless.

you're retarded

electric companies cannot cut your power because of your political beliefs. that's because we understand that corporate censorship is just as bad if not worse than government censorship. when government puts you in prison for your political beliefs, you'll be seen as a martyr being repressed, but if the media, the social media and all the other corporations collaborate to completely destroy your life, there's literally no recourse for you.

>Americans loosing their freedom
Poetry.

>being this retarded
Article 230 gives website total immunity. This bill would allow policing and punishment. Imagine if reddit got shut down for being an antifa and liberal terrorist hotbed....
Hnnnngggg

>drumph
You must be at least 18 to post here. Please leave this website immediately.

you put too much trust in zion don. he literally said in his speech after el paso shooting that he wanted to spy and snitch on potential "white supremacists terrorists". hell probably use that executive order to shut down Jow Forums.

electric companies can't cut your power over political crap because they're regulated as utilities.
If the internet were regulated as a utility, and facebook were regulated as a utility, you would have an argument.
But that's stupid and that's not how it works.

>jpeg
the chad altrighter noing that apostrophe indicates possession

>electric companies cannot cut your power because of your political beliefs.
Right, because electric companies are utilities. They have exclusive or near-exclusive control over physical infrastructure which connects people the the power grid.
Cloudflare are ultimately a bunch of random fucks on the internet. If you don't like them, or they don't like you, there are plenty of other companies you could talk to. Or you could set up your own hosting.

>but if the media, the social media and all the other corporations collaborate to completely destroy your life, there's literally no recourse for you.
What do you want, a law against being unpopular? If specific lines get crossed then you may have a case for libel or harassment, but there's no legal obligation for other people to be nice to you. That would be a violation of THEIR freedom of speech.

>But that's stupid and that's not how it works.
The bizarre thing is we've already had this entire conversation.
ISPs DO work they way that these people are claiming Cloudflare works - if an ISP cuts you off you're hosed. But apparently net neutrality was bad, and regulating private platforms is good?

the difference is that some low level grunt in a private company thought it would be smart to abuse their power to censor the senate majority leader "amongst others"
see, ideology and reason doesn't win against clout.

Attached: source.gif (630x385, 3.37M)

>the difference is that some low level grunt in a private company thought it would be smart to abuse their power to censor the senate majority leader "amongst others"
How's that different to a news channel not airing an interview, or a newspaper not publishing your letter?

>Cloudflare are ultimately a bunch of random fucks on the internet. If you don't like them, or they don't like you, there are plenty of other companies you could talk to. Or you could set up your own hosting.
In my area there are 10 different electricity companies operating.
So obviously the availability of alternatives is not a meaningful argument, maybe try again.

Also cloudflare doesn't do hosting, they are DDOS protection and without something like that you basically can not do anything, also you can't privately replace it as most of its value is in its size.

>What do you want, a law against being unpopular?
Against political censorship by companies which essentially make public discourse possible.

>That would be a violation of THEIR freedom of speech.
Nobody ever suggested that a YouTube employee shouldn't be allowed to disagree with content hosted in YouTube.

At this point YouTube has an enormous influence on the political discourse, they are effectively the censors of the internet, but if you want to have a functioning democracy freedom of speech can't just be something abstract. You have to ACTUALLY be able to say what you want.

it will end Trump

you're not the senate majority leader

Neither newspapers nor news channels create the platform for public discourse.
It is not about forcing CNN to host Richard Spencer 24/7.

It's about companies which are the place of the public discourse.
YouTube, Facebook, etc. people who aren't allowed to speak there basically have no voice in the public discourse.

>Also cloudflare doesn't do hosting, they are DDOS protection
I know, I was trying to simplify. There's still a number of competing companies offering that.

>Against political censorship by companies which essentially make public discourse possible.
They haven't "made it impossible", they've refused to make it easier. That's not the same thing.
You can still host your own website. You can still run your own newspaper. You can still stand on a corner with a sign and shout at people. You just can't use their services.

>You have to ACTUALLY be able to say what you want.
You can, just not on Youtube.

>YouTube, Facebook, etc. people who aren't allowed to speak there basically have no voice in the public discourse.
They can run their public discourse on someone else's lawn.

>get banned from twitter for saying Men can't become Women
>Hurr these companies are biased or censorious
Do you people even have double digit IQ?

They'll "refuse to make it easier" until they've strongarmed hosts into refusing service, banks from handling your business accounts, payment processors from handling your payments
You're pretty delusional if you think that you're not building an industry-wide blacklist.

i can think of a few races that have an average double digit IQ

>There's still a number of competing companies offering that.
And we have seen that this changes NOTHING.

>You can still host your own website. You can still run your own newspaper. You can still stand on a corner with a sign and shout at people. You just can't use their services.
Which means that you have been banned from the discourse in all meaningful ways.
Do you not understand that if you don't have a YouTube/Facebook nobody is going to care?

Do you think it would be okay for the government to go to a newspaper and say "you aren't allowed to print more than 1000 copies", is that a good idea if you want to have an open democracy?

>They can run their public discourse on someone else's lawn.
No, that is LITERALLY impossible.
The public discourse doesn't happen in the comment section of some tiny blog, it happens on the large social media sites.

Just answer the question:
Do you want to have a democracy with an open discourse?

Because THE ONLY way you can have such a democracy is if you allow people to speak IN THE SAME FORUM.