But I'm not only calling out the current IRL exceptions be applied to the internet (and it's so much more than 1%). People grouping together to discuss violence fantasies like rape, torture, murder, lynching. People are radicalized because they feel supported, and we can't wait for them to act IRL. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

tswillow2.bsky.social • 109 days ago

But I'm not only calling out the current IRL exceptions be applied to the internet (and it's so much more than 1%). People grouping together to discuss violence fantasies like rape, torture, murder, lynching. People are radicalized because they feel supported, and we can't wait for them to act IRL.

Comments

pteroductile.bsky.social•109 days ago

So then are you suggesting new exceptions be made for the first amendment? That just proves my point that your issue isn’t really with section 230. Because nothing you’ve described so far would be unprotected under current 1A law.

tswillow2.bsky.social•109 days ago

IRL the things I've pointed out are monitored for extremism & interrupted at the point of illegal. The KKK can't do what it used to. Online that monitoring & interruption doesn't exist due to 230. Nearly every school shooter is radicalized online. The internet didn't exist when the 1A was written.

pteroductile.bsky.social•109 days ago

None of the examples you gave would be unprotected speech, whether IRL or online. If a site wants to host racist kkk bs, they’re protected by the first amendment, even without 230. Just like they are if they publish it IRL.

tswillow2.bsky.social•109 days ago

I never mind sparring with trolls because there are others that read the posts and I can get more info out. But when someone just repeats ad nauseum the same response... you bore me. No need for you to respond, I'll just block you.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply