So... funny story...
I was making this post with a bunch of famous Dick pics, but I couldn't think of other famous people named Dick, so I decided to search for "celebrity dick".
It was at that point... that I realized... I fucked up. Don't search for that if you're looking for pictures like the ones below. It won't work.
I was making this post with a bunch of famous Dick pics, but I couldn't think of other famous people named Dick, so I decided to search for "celebrity dick".
It was at that point... that I realized... I fucked up. Don't search for that if you're looking for pictures like the ones below. It won't work.
If we all knew everything already there would be no need for discussion.
That goes for me too. I'd stop having discussions online if I felt like I had stopped learning anything from it.
That goes for me too. I'd stop having discussions online if I felt like I had stopped learning anything from it.
The original intent was to promote content moderation. They wanted to make sure that platforms were safe to moderate objectionable materials. Just take a look at the name of the act, the communications decency act.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Fediverse isn't just an American thing, and CDA 230 is only an American law.
That being said, people mistakenly think that CDA 230 protects platforms from the consequences of free speech that occurs on them, but that's not accurate: It protects platforms from the consequences of moderation, both by protecting them from liability for moderation and for protecting them from liability for failing to moderate.
Prior to CDA 230, two cases tested liability in the case of platforms mdoerating or not moderating their content.
CompuServe and Prodigy both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate, while Prodigy did.
CompuServe was sued over content on their forums, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that “they exercised editorial control — so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand”.
I suspect that in many cases around the world the law would look the same, since it doesn't make sense to hold for example a 7-11 liable for the content of the newspapers they sell.
That being said, people mistakenly think that CDA 230 protects platforms from the consequences of free speech that occurs on them, but that's not accurate: It protects platforms from the consequences of moderation, both by protecting them from liability for moderation and for protecting them from liability for failing to moderate.
Prior to CDA 230, two cases tested liability in the case of platforms mdoerating or not moderating their content.
CompuServe and Prodigy both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate, while Prodigy did.
CompuServe was sued over content on their forums, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that “they exercised editorial control — so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand”.
I suspect that in many cases around the world the law would look the same, since it doesn't make sense to hold for example a 7-11 liable for the content of the newspapers they sell.
Unfortunately, many people have been cheering for the crushing of dissent because it's been policies they agree with being dissented against.
Unprincipled people never imagine that it may someday be things they agree with being crushed.
Unprincipled people never imagine that it may someday be things they agree with being crushed.
I've written about something similar, that really what "freedom of religion" is, is an appeal to morality. In the 18th century, religion still made up the bulk of someone's moral foundation, so if you're given some latitude based on your religion, that means you're free not to participate in things that are fundamentally immoral to you.
In this way, the reduction in religion has led to a fundamental dissolution of one of our fundamental rights because while there is a freedom of religion, there is no secular equivalent. This means that in losing religion, we've also lost a fundamental right to appeal to deeply held moral beliefs and refuse to follow laws we feel unjust.
In this way, the reduction in religion has led to a fundamental dissolution of one of our fundamental rights because while there is a freedom of religion, there is no secular equivalent. This means that in losing religion, we've also lost a fundamental right to appeal to deeply held moral beliefs and refuse to follow laws we feel unjust.
I've heard the term "anarcho-tyranny" thrown around.
Friends of the regime are never charged as they literally rape and murder, but God help you if you defend yourself, because you'll be tied to a stake and set on fire.
Friends of the regime are never charged as they literally rape and murder, but God help you if you defend yourself, because you'll be tied to a stake and set on fire.
On the upside, at least they're apparently staffed enough to hurl spurious charges at their political enemies.
https://youtu.be/5HVK55hEtjk
Really interesting watching this beautiful work as it's created. I never knew how gemstones are cut.
Really interesting watching this beautiful work as it's created. I never knew how gemstones are cut.
Imagine being the poor fuckers having to desperately dodge flaming piles of bull cum.
I don't think even the Internet has anyone into that.
I don't think even the Internet has anyone into that.
I was just watching the video about the guy in this photo causing the largest airline disaster ever. Really interesting story about how even the guy who is the head trainer for the airline and literally the face of the company can make mistakes.
No females on the fediverse. Only men and FBI agents.
This is the rule of life. Cannot change rule.
This is the rule of life. Cannot change rule.
Well... I know I aint goin' anywhere.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, had the t-shirt stolen from me and burned to a crisp and got threatened by the prime minister that if I try to buy another t-shirt like that they'll freeze my bank accounts.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, had the t-shirt stolen from me and burned to a crisp and got threatened by the prime minister that if I try to buy another t-shirt like that they'll freeze my bank accounts.
Hunter is in on the conspiracy, actually. He's secretly MAGA and did everything he could to help the cause.