TL;DW: >This bill will automatically strip websites of their section 230 privileges (the protections against prosecution for the activity of its users) if certain criteria aren't met out the gate >The criteria aren't clearly defined in the bill, but what is proposed is horrifying >A panel of 19 people (composed mostly of law enforcement) will determine what the exact criteria will be >The Attorney General has final say and veto powers on whatever the end criteria are >The Attorney General has made clear that he wishes to destroy end-to-end encryption and require every transmitted message to be filtered through an automatic system >This system will be scanning for "illegal activity", and if it detects it, the internet companies are required to report it automatically for review
Essentially the Senate is actively trying to turn us into China by removing the need for search warrants for private communications, and any website that doesn't comply will be sued into oblivion. The cherry on top of this shit sundae is that this is flying completely under the radar because of the pandemic.
So, if you don't want all of your private phone calls and messages monitored and logged by an AI with law enforcement capabilities, then you should probably spread the word about this to everyone you can. Also, if you're not American, this will fuck you over too undoubtedly!
>Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies
Carter Collins
Checked. Have heard it proposed your way, and that it will remove non-publisher autonomy for selectively banning free speech. Shame we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.
Jordan Wright
Bump.
Jackson Green
could be a good thing depending on the criteria
google removing their blacklist recently is related?
Juan Flores
>that it will remove non-publisher autonomy for selectively banning free speech. By giving the government the ability to do that I can easily switch social media websites and search engines, I can't so easily change countries Especially when changing countries does hardly anything because most of the internet originates from the US to my knowledge
Seems like they added redundant words to make it spell that.
Nicholas Phillips
The government already exercises that authority over public communications via the FCC. It’s better that a government with theoretical ‘teeth’ dictate that free speech mustn’t be fucked with, and penalize someone claiming to be a neutral party controlling the narrative in any direction. Obviously these faggots will not self police.
Daniel Hill
im really hoping this is whats going on, stop those narrative driving fucks
Jackson Morales
So, you'd like to sacrifice the last inkling of personal privacy we have left just so you can post whatever you want on twitter? Seems a pretty bad deal, considering you can still post your opinions freely on a myriad of websites
put simply: companies have to "earn" the right to allow users to post content by permitting the backdoor in all communications.
in more complicated, unless they get approved by a board of pigs in blue, they have to prohibit all user input, otherwise just typing the words "google child porn" instantly makes them able to be criminally tried.
Brandon Stewart
I need to see it as well. The thread was shoad yesterday before I got an answer.
Complete warrantless surveillance of all communications
Owen Gutierrez
I agree that big tech's biases are atrocious, but is that worth sacrificing any and all privacy in the process
Do you really want the government to know everything about you, and to be able to use any of that information as they wish? Does that really sound like a good idea?
Charles Reyes
>thread slid by all this yellow journalism right now UP YOU GO. DAB ON THE GLOWIES
well they already know, but if this bill lets them fine me for a bunch of random speech laws that would suck some donkey tits yea
like "hur dur you searched the word loli 2 years ago, now pay up and also youre on our pedo list" not sure theyd get away with that though
William Wood
bump
Ayden Baker
Don't see anything in the actual text of the bill that does what OP claims besides the 19 person panel.
Isaiah Ross
Is this a non-sequitur? If the Attorney General has absolute say on the matter if passed, can we not reasonably assume he'll enact the policies he's been publicly asking for?
Jordan Gomez
This thread won't get the amount of replies you're expecting. It didn't yesterday either. I'm too dumb to read the bill because I'm not a lawyer but I'm trying. Yas Forums isn't interested because it's benign I think. Lawyerbros have had plenty of time to weigh in on this and haven't as far as I see.
James Torres
>Yas Forums isn't interested because it's benign I think. it's this exact impression that makes this so dangerous
Asher Sanders
Nope, I read the bill, and so far all you're doing is citing regurgitated talking points from other websites.
Ryder Allen
I've read the bill too Now, would please address: >If the Attorney General has absolute say on the matter if passed, can we not reasonably assume he'll enact the policies he's been publicly asking for?
Nathan Watson
That's speculation.
Now, would you please give me a single section or paragraph in the bill that backs up anything you claim.
Blake Williams
Yes, flying totalitarian legislation under the radar is the purpose of the media created pandemic
Jackson Sanchez
Checked and werefuckedpilled
Nathaniel King
>The Attorney General or his or her representative shall serve as the Chairperson of the Commission.
>the Attorney General, upon agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall—
(A) approve or deny the recommended best practices; and
So, the Attorney General is the chairperson of the committee, and the only "checks" on his power will be fellow partisans who'll act as a rubber stamp for whatever he wants
Landon Johnson
what was the bill about?
Ryan Lee
"Fight the EARN-IT Act" posts are just sad and desperate pedos trying to rile us up to fight a bill for them so they can keep fucking our children.
Case in point can only regurgitate his talking point on how the bill allows the Attorney General to guide the committee (something that's, you know, inherent to ALL committees with a chairperson) and his vague speculation on how he'll pass "something" using this power.
You can't reasonably assume anything when it comes to a politician, let alone a pedoposter.
Michael Williams
could you give us a quick rundown on what the bill actually does?
Joseph Howard
No you total fucking left field conclusionist. PRISM mean anything to you? Eschalon? FFS.
Charles Bailey
1 sheckle has been added to your account
Austin Ortiz
It's about establishing the equivalent of the ESRB for websites. Grading them based on potential sexual predator content and then trying to identify (self-reported mostly, there's nothing in there that pressures or requires id data to be given) those predators.
It's a boomer-tier attempt at trying to catch pedos online and tell companies "you should adopt our rating system or we may not like you". It's a stupid bill but it's hardly a Patriot Act 2.0.
Caleb Sanchez
Yes, resort to the "muh childrens" argument, because that hasn't been driven into the ground
You know just as well as I do that that's a smokescreen designed so you can do exactly what you did in your post: namecall and ad hom anyone who disagrees with it as a pedo
Just like everyone who opposed the PATRIOT Act must be a terrorist, right? And everyone caught up in the ensuing mass surveillance is just an accident, right?
Christopher Allen
I'm still waiting on those citations. Need another 20 minutes?
Dominic Young
Considering how they expertly handled Epstein I have zero faith in my government to use this to the benefit of the people. Backdoors are backdoors and forcing everyone to have them is going to give us Equifax-tier breaches.
Fuck, I hope Corona wipes the slate clear of these two-faced snaked tongue'd kiddy diddling back stabbers.
Parker Hall
Don't even try it bro. The people here are already pre-emptively conditioned to agree with it from all the schizogate agitprop. You cannot win against a moral outrage. They have found a witch that's cursing the village and they will stop at absolutely nothing to have her burn at the stake, even if that meant their freedoms disappearing. The braindead cattle above me desperately trying to shill for it is the exact same brand of golems who completely accepted the PATRIOT Act and call people like Snowden traitors, and you'll convince him about as much as the thousands of us managed to convince them to oppose dystopic bills like that. You must understand that some people are actually in full agreement with stuff like this and most importantly - they're the majority.
Juan Reyes
That's a totally fair point, agreed
Aaron Gomez
High intelligence civilization requires little to no authority. Diversity ensures the need for authority. Ergo, the lower the cumulative IQ gets (and we’re fucking sprinting) the more authority will be, not only emplaced, but required. Prove me wrong.
Jack Myers
>The fact that there's no thread on this is criminal I can't wait for the banking industry to implode when we can't have encrypted connections anymore. At least the USPS will survive as people mail physical cheques.
Logan Lee
>Prove me wrong. Sure thing. Your claim is that the increased diversity has led to the need for an increased authority to handle it. Following that, is that increased authority reducing the diversity percentage or enacting racial profiling to prevent these crimes?
Benjamin Powell
If they wanted to reduce the need for authority, that is exactly what they would do. Do bankers want to get rid of money? Does the Prison industry want no criminals? Don’t think in simpleton terms. Not simply racial diversity, diversity of ethics, morals, religions, cultures and races sometimes embody traits at high rates. Thank you for entertaining the question
Jordan Ramirez
This is unconstitutional and goes against the 4th amendment.
Another way to say a thing. Diverse societies can and do exist, within them, you can see self segregation. Why?
Lucas Hill
Your post is idiotic and split in all directions. I'm sorry bro you're simply not worth my reply. Go and meditate a bit on this topic before making a fool of yourself. You tried to route the argument as if niggers are getting btfo by this and this is a huge win for the authoritarian white utopia, but it really isn't, this bill is literally targeted against white supremacist websites like this one, as they are the only thing actually challenging the US government internally. It's not niggers or commies who're having wet dreams about a civil war, it's this place. It's not the commie shitholes that got taken down, it was 8ch specifically because of Yas Forums. It wasn't /leftypol/ that had a fed shill literally post among them, it was Yas Forums. The government's current target is the radical right wing community of the internet.
But why even bother typing that out to a lobotomized golem who'll pull anything out of his ass to justify this bullshit.
Nathan Green
I'll bump
Josiah Torres
This just usurps the shit out of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.
How do you fuckers manage to keep the constitution man? It's attacked daily by jews and goyim alike. Honest to God I think the only thing keeping the constitution in shape is the 2nd amendment, no other way to keep tyranny at bay.
