Real Talk

[PrepGridiron]

I know I haven’t been around at all, but I want to say one thing that’s been on my mind. For most of you that don’t know, I have a bit of background in these things and I can tell you nearly unequivocally that if section 230 is repealed, I will shut down this site immediately. Now that may be welcome news to some, but I can assure you that it will be a dark day in the big picture. 

[Troll]

so you must have just read how attacking 230 is now attacking only the smaller companies as the larger ones can afford lawyers etc.  I wouldn't fall for it...

so what makes you think you would be on the hook any differently than now?

People can sue you right now if they choose.....that does not change

Unless you are someone claiming to be an actual "true news" site, then you can just hang out with the rest of the "fiction entertainment" sites....

I wouldn't buy the hyped BS

Just sayin'

 

[Atticus Finch]

[maxchoboian]

5 hours ago, PrepGridiron said:

...I can tell you nearly unequivocally that if section 230 is repealed, I will shut down this site immediately. 

I hope it is not repealed, but if it is I would do the same if I were in your shoes.

[Nolebull813]

6 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Rick Wilson? Lol. Might as well have said Ana Navarro or some other “republican” 

[Atticus Finch]

16 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Rick Wilson? Lol. Might as well have said Ana Navarro or some other “republican” 

The title is what's relevant.

And Rick Wilson has worked for: Connie Mack, George H. W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and Saxy Chambliss.

All Republicans.

So of course your silly "HeS NOt ReALLy a rEpUbliCAN!" line is lame but not unexpected.

[Nolebull813]

2 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

The title is what's relevant.

And Rick Wilson has worked for: Connie Mack, George H. W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and Saxy Chambliss.

All Republicans.

So of course your silly "HeS NOt ReALLy a rEpUbliCAN!" line is lame but not unexpected.

No one could ever be Republican if they try their hardest to take power and/or control away from Republicans and give them to Democrats. That’s as fake and traitorous as they come. 
 

You can be Republican and not like Trump, but if you can’t see that him being President over Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden is better to enact Republicans policies then you are either brain dead or some traitorous cunt like Rick Wilson and the left wing Lincoln Project 

[Atticus Finch]

9 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

No one could ever be Republican if they try their hardest to take power and/or control away from Republicans and give them to Democrats. That’s as fake and traitorous as they come. 

He left the Republican Party in 2016......because of Trump.

There's nothing at all incongruent about what he did in the past and what he's doing now.

[Atticus Finch]

10 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

You can be Republican and not like Trump, but if you can’t see that him being President over Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden is better to enact Republicans policies then you are either brain dead or some traitorous cunt like Rick Wilson and the left wing Lincoln Project 

Rick Wilson has been pretty clear on his reasoning. It's not confusing to anybody who can actually read plain English.

What's funny is that I've posted this picture about 3 to 4 times and nobody has ever said "You're wrong because X, Y, Z."

Nope.

They always just whine and insult Rick Wilson.

Why?

Because even they know that it's true: Trump is a malignant imbecile who destroys everything he touches.

[PrepGridiron]

1 hour ago, Troll said:

so you must have just read how attacking 230 is now attacking only the smaller companies as the larger ones can afford lawyers etc.  I wouldn't fall for it...

so what makes you think you would be on the hook any differently than now?

People can sue you right now if they choose.....that does not change

Unless you are someone claiming to be an actual "true news" site, then you can just hang out with the rest of the "fiction entertainment" sites....

I wouldn't buy the hyped BS

Just sayin'

 

No, i didn’t just read how attacking 230 is attacking smaller companies. I’ve understood 230 and it’s uses for many years. And, yes, you are correct anyone can sue anyone at any time, but Section 230 provides cover whether you are a big company or a small one. The way 230 is being portrayed, however, is inaccurate. 230 has nothing to do with “true news” or “fiction entertainment”. Sites are still held liable for what they say whether true or fiction; 230 does not insulate them from that. Rather 230 allows sites to not be held responsible for what third parties say when the site is a forum. 

[imaGoodBoyNow]

Can  we just ban @Cossacks and @CODBEARD I feel like that’s the easier route 

[Nolebull813]

50 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Rick Wilson has been pretty clear on his reasoning. It's not confusing to anybody who can actually read plain English.

What's funny is that I've posted this picture about 3 to 4 times and nobody has ever said "You're wrong because X, Y, Z."

Nope.

They always just whine and insult Rick Wilson.

Why?

Because even they know that it's true: Trump is a malignant imbecile who destroys everything he touches.

It’s ok to change parties. Plenty of Democrats switched over. But he is still branded and advertised as a Republican. A “Republican strategist” whatever the hell that made up term is. 
 

Like i said you can be conservative, Republican and not like Trump at all. But to say you hate him so much you would rather see left wing radicals in power instead just proves you are not a Republican in any sense of the word. Which is ok. But be honest about it 

[Nolebull813]

5 minutes ago, imaGoodBoyNow said:

Can  we just ban @Cossacks and @CODBEARD I feel like that’s the easier route 

If you really want to take the garbage out, you will ban @BUFORDGAWOLVES @AztecPadre @Ga96 and @RedZone

That right there would get Prep the freaking Nobel Peace Prize 😂

[Troll]

On 12/29/2020 at 11:26 AM, PrepGridiron said:

No, i didn’t just read how attacking 230 is attacking smaller companies. I’ve understood 230 and it’s uses for many years. And, yes, you are correct anyone can sue anyone at any time, but Section 230 provides cover whether you are a big company or a small one. The way 230 is being portrayed, however, is inaccurate. 230 has nothing to do with “true news” or “fiction entertainment”. Sites are still held liable for what they say whether true or fiction; 230 does not insulate them from that. Rather 230 allows sites to not be held responsible for what third parties say when the site is a forum. 

Lots of differing legal opinions on the subject but I wouldn't go by how it is being hyped...

BTW: it doesn't provide "cover" .....It provides "immunity".  You already have plenty of "cover" within the law for reasonable actions with regard to platforms and  running sites, as long as you are not going around intentionaly hunting and bashing people yourself.  Now you may be right that you have never had to worry about the basics at all, and rely on that blanket immunity to simply do nothing at all, and if you have to do "anything" you are out ....and that is fine.  But the removal of 230 is not going to run every small internet site off the map due to lawsuit liability, and it is relatively simple with some basic business practices to stay within the law here....

Just sayin'

 

[Atticus Finch]

7 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

It’s ok to change parties.

He didn't change parties. He just left the Republican Party.

[Atticus Finch]

7 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

But he is still branded and advertised as a Republican. A “Republican strategist” whatever the hell that made up term is. 

No, he's not.

"Former Republican Strategist".

[Atticus Finch]

8 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Like i said you can be conservative, Republican and not like Trump at all. But to say you hate him so much you would rather see left wing radicals in power instead just proves you are not a Republican in any sense of the word. Which is ok. But be honest about it 

He's not a Republican anymore. This is not in dispute.

Isn't it interesting that you never have to tell the truth to perfectly espouse your political position?

Amazing.

[imaGoodBoyNow]

15 minutes ago, Troll said:

Lots of differing legal opinions on the subject but I wouldn't go by how it is being hyped...

BTW: it doesn't provide "cover" .....It provides "immunity".  You already have plenty of "cover" within the law for reasonable actions with regard to publishing and  running sites, as long as you are not going around intentionaly hunting and bashing people yourself.  Now you may be right that you have never had to worry about the basics at all, and rely on that blanket immunity to simply do nothing at all, and if you have to do "anything" you are out ....and that is fine.  But the removal of 230 is not going to run every small internet site off the map due to lawsuit liability, and it is relatively simple with some basic business practices to stay within the law here....

Just sayin'

 

Can’t I just switch the website to me or someone who doesn’t give a fuck?

[imaGoodBoyNow]

13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

He didn't change parties. He just left the Republican Party.

 

13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

No, he's not.

"Former Republican Strategist".

 

12 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

He's not a Republican anymore. This is not in dispute.

Isn't it interesting that you never have to tell the truth to perfectly espouse your political position?

Amazing.

ADDICUS CAN YOU STAY ON TOPIC 

[PrepGridiron]

16 minutes ago, Troll said:

Lots of differing legal opinions on the subject but I wouldn't go by how it is being hyped...

BTW: it doesn't provide "cover" .....It provides "immunity".  You already have plenty of "cover" within the law for reasonable actions with regard to publishing and  running sites, as long as you are not going around intentionaly hunting and bashing people yourself.  Now you may be right that you have never had to worry about the basics at all, and rely on that blanket immunity to simply do nothing at all, and if you have to do "anything" you are out ....and that is fine.  But the removal of 230 is not going to run every small internet site off the map due to lawsuit liability, and it is relatively simple with some basic business practices to stay within the law here....

Just sayin'

 

It won't run every small internet site off the map due to lawsuit liability, it will run every small internet site that provides a forum for third party discourse off the map because it will become too cost prohibitive to moderate the content 

[Troll]

On 12/29/2020 at 11:59 AM, PrepGridiron said:

It won't run every small internet site off the map due to lawsuit liability, it will run every small internet site that provides a forum for third party discourse off the map because it will become too cost prohibitive to moderate the content 

 what makes you think it so cost prohibitive once it becomes the law ???

This is the "automated" internet, and most of that "automated censorship" (and complaint review processes) are already built, and in use.

You will not be required to build all this crap yourself and will probably just need to buy some software or have a monitor service or procedure in place.

Our law has always been a complain and remove system for the publishers, it's the authors that are liable for the first shot, and spoken/written word.  Publishers are ALWAYS given the opportunity to retract or clarify.

Just some basics

 

 

[PrepGridiron]

3 minutes ago, Troll said:

That's what I mean, what makes you think it so cost prohibitive once it becomes the law ???

This is the "automated" internet, and most of that "automated censorship" (and complaint review processes) are already built, and in use.

You will not be required to build all this crap yourself and will probably just need to buy some software or have a monitor service or procedure in place.

Our law has always been a complain and remove system for the publishers, it's the authors that are liable for the first shot, and spoken/written word.  Publishers are ALWAYS given the opportunity to retract or clarify.

Just some basics

 

 

I understand the basics. This site (like many others) will completely change if we automate censorship and my guess (could be completely wrong) is that folks will leave and again this site will de facto crumble. 

[Troll]

On 12/29/2020 at 12:17 PM, PrepGridiron said:

I understand the basics. This site (like many others) will completely change if we automate censorship and my guess (could be completely wrong) is that folks will leave and again this site will de facto crumble. 

That is true somewhat, but bear in mind, opinion is opinion and you are not required to censor that...

My guess is that much of the process if this comes to pass (or revoke lol) could be handled by your web host that offers a built in process of complaint/legal review....

Perhaps an opportunity there for those 💡

all you need is a reasonable complaint/vetting process and platforms are good....

The REAL problem is sites who cross the line with PRODUCTION of content, or thru censorship and manipulation essentially become  authors of content, and not just the platform....This has not been an issue for forums like this one....

Law is always guesswork of interpretation tho, and when you are the one exposed, I would not second guess any decision you make.  But I would not go by the msm interpretations or current hype, as much as I would go with standing legal tradition.

Hopefully when it is addressed, people like you won't get the shaft.

 

 

 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

2 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

If you really want to take the garbage out, you will ban @BUFORDGAWOLVES @AztecPadre @Ga96 and @RedZone

That right there would get Prep the freaking Nobel Peace Prize 😂

Well shit NoBalls... since you’ve won “time out” awards at least twice.... I got a shit ton of work to do to get to your level of stupidity. 
 

I mean White Power and all that shit you like saying....

 

bgw

[PrepGridiron]

48 minutes ago, Troll said:

That is true somewhat, but bear in mind, opinion is opinion and you are not required to censor that...

My guess is that much of the process if this comes to pass (or revoke lol) could be handled by your web host that offers a built in process of complaint/legal review....

Perhaps an opportunity there for those 💡

all you need is a reasonable complaint/vetting process and publishers are good....

The REAL problem is sites who cross the line with PRODUCTION of content, or thru censorship and manipulation essentially become  authors of content, and not just the publisher....This has not been an issue for forums like this one....

Law is always guesswork of interpretation tho, and when you are the one exposed, I would not second guess any decision you make.  But I would not go by the msm interpretations or current hype, as much as I would go with standing legal tradition.

Hopefully when it is addressed, people like you won't get the shaft.

 

 

 

I understand the fundamental issue with the REAL problem you identified, but hear me out. 

Right now, as owner of the site, I have the choice to censor any content about a particular football team, i.e., if I wanted only good comments about De La Salle (as an example), I could delete, flag, edit how I see fit and as site owner that is my prerogative. Now, I don't/won't do that because users would most likely leave and because I generally believe open dialogue serves everyone, but I have that prerogative. What you are suggesting is a line that I don't know where it exists, that is to say when does someone become a publisher through censorship of third party content? The ancillary question to that is who decides that line.

Personally, I think it should be self-governed, so if someone doesn't like how Twitter or others flag certain information, then that person shouldn't use their site. And if enough people don't use their site, Twitter will have to make business choices on whether they should censor so much. One uses their site, however, because of the size of the audience on the platform and the realization that one can't just go to another platform with that same audience.