Message from @>Cytos, de lieve goede synth
Discord ID: 436570569681666048
It would appear that patreon has now changed their guidelines and is policing speech of comedians not even on their platform, why anyone would continue to build a business on this is beyond me
https://youtu.be/ROAPJJejXPE
* I mean what they complained about wasn't on their platform, it was on twitter / Facebook
That seems to be the new trend: platforms policing their user's actions even on other platforms that are not their own.
It's getting crazy, haven't liked patreon since that rubin report interview, he just didn't seem trustworthy there...
It's just going to create an ecosystem where if you do anything wrong anywhere, you'll get banned everywhere.
And in this case, 'doing anything wrong' is going to include wrongthink.
Yeah, seems even banks are starting to do that
Which is real dangerous.
Yeah I've only heard them doing it for companies because of something the founder allegedly did but still a bad trend
Can Andrew Anglin still own a bank account?
I know he's essentially banned from the internet, but what about the real world?
Yeah no idea, they might claim its because of "security" problems rather than his politics
Yeah.
tfw multi billion dollar companies don't know how to properly moderate
pre-emptive banning is how you lose users
lose trust
and cause constant drama shitstorms
i think what you wanted to say is "go bankrupt"
I'm trying to figure out if you make a forum in which you do not moderate any content anymore. I don't think there is any legal protection. that stupid sex works/sex trafficking law makes that impossible. At least without a very good lawyer that could try to weasel out of any charges by making it the responsibility of 3rd parties to notify them, with proof, of legit cases of sex trafficking/sex worker. I don't know if there is a bit of subjective wiggle room to make it the states responsibility to notify the content provider of illegal content on a case by case basis.
its impossible to comply
"hello im starting a pizza resaurant, anyone want to buy my Cheese Pizza?"
impossible to comply? or not comply?
the gist is that you can use code words that can mean the illigal activities you want to sell
in other words, even if youd moderate every single post
it still would not be enough
i'm more curious about a way so that even if someone said "hey, want to by a kid sex slave from me?" (sorry discord, guess you gotta shut this down) with legit intent to sell a kid sex slave, the feds couldn't do anything without proof that user is an actual trafficker, which would require knowing who the guy is, and basically having enough of a case against the user that it would have been able to make the content hoster remove the stuff anyway for that user
well, you are looking at it wrong i think
by making the site liable, the site will do whatever it takes to protect itself
regardless of guilt
no, you are missing my point.
i'm not talking about current existing sites
one of the problems, which i think tim discussed before, about that one law protecting providers, was based entirely on the fact they moderated posts.
this made them publishers, which opened them up for legal action that the law was than made to prevent
which means, in theory, that law is still hanging around somewhere protecting people who host things published by other people from being liable for that content, so long as you do not touch it.
oh you mean like how twitter badge is now not only proof that the person is who he says he is, but also that his opinions are twitter aproved, on account of peoples whos opinions twitter doesnt aprove of lose there verification and maybe evem get banned?
no no no. So there is, or at least was, a law that protected sites like twitter, from being held responsible for shit that happened on their site.
this is how craiglist could have personals where there was clearly prostitution going on.
craiglist could not get charged with the crimes of its users, basically
however, the law that grants that protection, was only added in the context that the sites themselves are publishers of these posts. At the time, that would make them liable hence the need for the new law to protect them. However, the only reason, if i remember how it was explained to me, that they are considered "publishers" is because sites would moderate their users content.
if they didn't touch that content, they wouldn't justifiably be called publishers because they don't control the content in any way.