logo Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
13-Feb-2025
Posts
3,400

Post History

Post
#1190486
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.

Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?

Most of the sexual exploitation crimes like human trafficking and child pornography trade don’t actually take place on legitimate websites, and it is already illegal to operate a website that exists for the purposes of those sex crimes. This is just the government’s way of trying to get a tighter grip on the internet and they’re doing it, like they always have done, by pretending to care about the victims of sex crimes. They’ve been trying this shit since the 1990s. Also, think about it, if two people are organizing a prostitution meet-up through Facebook messenger (meaning private messages) does that mean that Facebook is liable?

No doubt, many would like to restrict the internet in a variety of ways. If you get the right set of facts together any site might be liable. Find one executive was aware it was happening and did nothing about it because they didn’t want to lose any revenue and maybe that’s enough to bring a case, if not enough to win it.

Each little step will seem reasonable to some and at the end of it, the internet will be a very different place. Speaking of copyright concerns, the site keepvid (allowing downloads of videos from sites like youtube) recently shutdown due to copyright complaints.

Post
#1190466
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The right-wing response to the Parkland survivors’ demand for gun-control has done more to expose how evil the right wing is than any exposé liberals have ever done.

Yeah it certainly doesn’t help the discussion to be bashing children, even if they’re wrong.

I’ve not commented on this because there is no use. There are those on the right who responded badly and those who responded well. Obviously the poor responses are going to get the attention and feed the narrative one wants to feed.

I previously posted about the March for Life, which is composed of many youths who flood DC every year for the protest. In response to that event, it was stated:

moviefreakedmind said:

I hate everybody at the women’s march and I hate everybody at the march for life and I hope the ground splits open and all of them fall into the Earth. Sounds fair and unbiased to me.

TV’s Frink said:

Fuck those assholes.

I didn’t remark then that it is composed of so many youths, but I don’t know that that would matter to anyone here.

Post
#1190382
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Possessed said:

Idk but if fanedits becoming harder to get means human trafficking is harder to do then I’m more than okay with it.

The internet facilitates a lot. If this law only targeted sites that promote crimes, I would be on board.

edit: even allowing liability for “promoting” copyright infringement would be problematic, but it is a narrower kind of culpability and site owners can take reasonable steps to protect themselves. And like you, I’d like to prevent human trafficking.

The bill does state that there must be “the intent to promote or facilitate.” As narrow as it sounds with the “intent” requirement, it is very risky to websites who can’t trust that an honest declaration of their lacking bad intent will absolve them of culpability. Thus craigslist which I don’t think “intends” to facilitate sex crimes closes its personals section. Legally, the risk is too great, even with good intent.

Post
#1190377
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.

Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?

Post
#1188823
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to this school?

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to any school?

A degree. Also, secondarily, an experience.

A shitty experience.

Did you not find yourself, discover new horizons, and make lifelong friends?

No, I downed sleeping pills and contemplated driving into Lake Erie.

So you’ve learned Lake Michigan is better? Or just closer?

This strikes me as a particularly poor attempt at humor.

It is an exceptionally poor attempt at humor, but in his defense it is less non-sensical if you’re an avid reader of the invisible thread.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I bet that thread is a lot of fun today.

Surprisingly it isn’t active right this second. There were some especially harsh comments directed at me a day or two ago and that’s when Lake Michigan came up. Not sure what it has to do with this conversation, though, other than being one of the Great Lakes.

I thought it was your schtick joking about going into various Great Lakes since you’ve done it two days in a row now. I don’t remember harsh comments directed at you. Sorry if it come across badly.

Post
#1188808
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I love his portrait but I think it’s a bit too abstract to be the official portrait.

That’s why it’s great.

It is great, but I think his official portrait should be less exciting.

Settle down. Maybe you should have gone to a strict no-portrait college so you wouldn’t have to deal with a slightly exciting one.

I admit to laughing at this.

Post
#1188736
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to this school?

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to any school?

A degree. Also, secondarily, an experience.

A shitty experience.

Did you not find yourself, discover new horizons, and make lifelong friends?

No, I downed sleeping pills and contemplated driving into Lake Erie.

So you’ve learned Lake Michigan is better? Or just closer?

No it’s just bigger.

That’s true!

Post
#1188719
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to this school?

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to any school?

A degree. Also, secondarily, an experience.

A shitty experience.

Did you not find yourself, discover new horizons, and make lifelong friends?

No, I downed sleeping pills and contemplated driving into Lake Erie.

So you’ve learned Lake Michigan is better? Or just closer?

Post
#1188701
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged male would feel the need to go to an all-male college though.

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged female would feel the need to go to an all-female college though.

Safety?

Try to imagine if you had been raped in high school. Just for starters.

So if I was a woman and was raped by a black student in highschool, would I be justified in wanting to go to a whites only school?

I honestly don’t know how to respond to this.

Not wanting to go to a school with the same gender that raped me is the same as not wanting to go to a school with the same race that raped me?

How does a race rape someone?

How does a gender?

Come on man.

It’s a fair question.

It’s not rational to blame all men for the action of one. Nor would it be rational to blame all black men. You might have more sympathy for the one impulse over the other, but let’s be honest about it.

Men are more likely to rape a woman then women are. Are blacks more likely to rape a woman than whites?

I’m sure a traumatized woman will be sure to look up statistics before forming any bias.