And yes i know.. into the trash can this will go. or might even get
fully deleted, or even my account locked. So be it. Idiot. 

That's what the Trashcan is for. We don't delete messages here unless their presence creates a legal risk for me, and we don't disable user accounts unless they're deliberately trying to trash the place.

And once in a while someone does say "Wow IG, you were a little heavy handed there" and we put things back the way they were.

I doubt you'll get such a compassionate and introspective policy from any other place. I try, I really do, because I continue to believe that everyone deserves to be heard and every member of our community is a valuable voice.

2025-03-13 23:30 from Nurb432
Are you really this freaking stupid or do you just play a

Yea, I think SCG may be wrong - there are legitimate questions around private censorship. Because let's say I own a social media platform, as the owner/entrepreneur I have the right of conscience to refuse to associate myself with speech that I don't like -- so my right to censor is my own right to speech.

Because let's say I own a social media platform, as
the owner/entrepreneur I have the right of conscience to refuse to
associate myself with speech that I don't like

Isn't that essentially the core of the whole publisher vs. platform dichotomy?

2025-03-24 15:55 from LoanShark

2025-03-13 23:30 from Nurb432
Are you really this freaking stupid or do you just play a

Yea, I think SCG may be wrong - there are legitimate questions around

private censorship. Because let's say I own a social media platform, as

the owner/entrepreneur I have the right of conscience to refuse to

associate myself with speech that I don't like -- so my right to censor

is my own right to speech.

I think it is more basic than that.

Your place is yours because you either built it or bought it, so you get to decide who is invited and under which conditions. Then, the people you invite gets to decide if they like your place or they are better off elsewhere.


The real problem with censorship-heavy Internet services is that people is so damn moronic that they will keep returning once it is demonstrated you enjoy shoving pumkins up their asses until their eyes pop out of their sockets. It is specially jarring because many online services are noticeably worse at what they are supposed to accomplish due to the censorship - say, boardgame forums that cannot be used for boardgame discusion because they see a political ban-worthy offense in every little thing anybody says.


People visiting these places are the ones failing, and I put more blame on them than on the site operators.

2025-03-24 21:03 from IGnatius T Foobar

Because let's say I own a social media platform, as
the owner/entrepreneur I have the right of conscience to refuse to

associate myself with speech that I don't like

Isn't that essentially the core of the whole publisher vs. platform

dichotomy?

I don't know. Here a book publisher can decide not to publish your book because he dislikes it. In fact publishers spend more time telling authors to shove their manuscripts up their asses and then lay on the railway than actually publishing their stuff. Publishers are extremely selective regarding what they take.

Right, but I'm going with the prevailing interpretation of Section 230 (sorry, US centric here, I realize it's different elsewhere) that says you can either be a publisher -- which means you're allowed to curate and editorialize but you have legal liability for what you publish -- or a platform -- which means you have reasonable legal immunity but you're not allowed to decide who can and cannot communicate over the platform.

We've had this discussion in other rooms before and I realize that not everyone sees it the same way. The easy examples are something like a newspaper, clearly a publisher because they decide what goes in and what doesn't; and for example the phone company, who clearly isn't responsible if someone commits a crime using the telephone. The perennial debate is over the big social networks, who want both editorial control *and* legal immunity.

Here at Uncensored my approach has always been that you get a voice, but we will move a thread to the appropriate place on the site if it makes sense. Topic drift happens, and that's ok; we'll make sure it goes where it is on topic if we have to.
We even have a place to move the shitposting -- right here in the Trashcan.
The delete button is reserved only for content that would create a legal risk for me as the site operator if it were left intact. Thankfully that hardly ever happens.

2025-03-26 13:22 from IGnatius T Foobar
Subject: RE: publisher vs platforms
Right, but I'm going with the prevailing interpretation of Section 230

(sorry, US centric here, I realize it's different elsewhere) that says

you can either be a publisher -- which means you're allowed to curate

and editorialize but you have legal liability for what you publish --

or a platform -- which means you have reasonable legal immunity but
you're not allowed to decide who can and cannot communicate over the
platform.

That is neither the prevailing nor correct interpretation of Section 230. Some people would like it to be both, but they aren't reading the actual law.

Fecebook et al are shielded from liability by Section 230 regardless of which side of that line they fall on. Like it or not.

I've heard you say that before but I'm not clear on your interpretation of how 230 is supposed to work. If it doesn't separate publishers and platforms, what *does* it do?

2025-04-01 13:35 from IGnatius T Foobar
Subject: RE: publisher vs platforms
I've heard you say that before but I'm not clear on your interpretation

of how 230 is supposed to work. If it doesn't separate publishers and

platforms, what *does* it do?

It doesn't. It simply protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. This protects Uncensored the same way it protects Facebook, for better and for worse.

I could post a bunch of woke BS and you could ban me just for being annoying (wait, why haven't you done that already?) and you're still legally protected if somebody posts libellous content or whatever. 230 is broad. The only area you're not protected from is the facilitation of prostitution, and that's a recent exception that was carved out when FOSTA/SESTA passed. That's basically the Backpage bill.

Look at it this way: if 230 actually worked the way you keep saying, we would know it, because Facebook and Twitter would be mired in, and probably losing, so many lawsuits that they would probably be bankrupt. They are clearly acting as "publishers" in your definition because they exercise some degree of editorial control. If that rendered them unprotected we would know.

I could post a bunch of woke BS and you could ban me just for being
annoying (wait, why haven't you done that already?) and you're still
legally protected if somebody posts libellous content or whatever. 230

You haven't been banned because we're both reasonable people and we're friends, dork. :)

If what you're saying is true then I've definitely been reading the wrong sources and need to change my mind (like I said ... reasonable). I figured the biggest sites were working towards a future where it would be a legal landmine for anyone other than themselves to run a public access forum.

Walter de Jong (of bbs100 fame) shut the whole project down in 2018 because the "laws surrounding the handling of personal data and offering online services have become strict enough that it is no longer possible to run a simple online service such as bbs100 without breaking the law." He's in the EU however, so he's probably interpreting their GPSR. He should have just moved his hosting to the US. Or maybe he just felt like shutting it down and used that as an excuse.

Fuck the EU. I block cookie notices with my adblocker.

Take a look at some of the things that Shoshana Weissman is posting on Twitter... she's fairly knowledgable about 230. And works for a libertarian/right-leaning think tank and is a cool outdoorsy hiker!

Occasionally you see the back-and-forth chatter between her and Ron Wyden, original sponsor of the bill itself. Section 230 is very very libertarian. I don't believe it was ever intended to regulate, from what I've been hearing. It's just a liability protection, because there's a lot of websites that simply could not exist without it. It would be death by a thousand cuts of frivolous lawsuits.

Walter de Jong (of bbs100 fame) shut the whole project down in 2018

because the "laws surrounding the handling of personal data and
offering online services have become strict enough that it is no longer

possible to run a simple online service such as bbs100 without breaking

the law." He's in the EU however, so he's probably interpreting their

GPSR. He should have just moved his hosting to the US. Or maybe he

just felt like shutting it down and used that as an excuse.

To be fair, the EU will still prosecute you for operating a non-GDPR compliant service even if you host it out of EU reach.

I understand closing down an European service you operate as a protest, but I don't think policing is becoming so effective that it is actually risky to operate an European Internet service without your paperwork in order. As far as I understand, the GDPR gets enforced mainly by snitchers. There is no GDPR agency actively looking for hobby forums to take down, but disgruntled users may complain to European autorities that there is a forum over there with no GDPR compliant ToS.

And a few, do not seem to be fun to be around

Don't let that get in the way. I make it a point not to let any of that get out of control.