JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
So why aren't gun owners on godaddy (aside from the obvious reasons of course) and "reporting" all the communist, leftists, anti-American sites and getting them removed?
 
So why aren't gun owners on godaddy (aside from the obvious reasons of course) and "reporting" all the communist, leftists, anti-American sites and getting them removed?
Being a communist or a leftist or an anti fascist or a white supremacist or a member of a militia or even just a sheep who believes whatever the leader of their cult of personality tells them isn't anti-American or illegal. Planning and enacting an assault on congress in an attempt to prevent it from performing its duty is.
 
Being a communist or a leftist or an anti fascist or a white supremacist or a member of a militia or even just a sheep who believes whatever the leader of their cult of personality tells them isn't anti-American or illegal. Planning and enacting an assault on congress in an attempt to prevent it from performing its duty is.

This is interesting. the idea that being a person who wants to destroy the county (in this case America) that gives you the freedom to run riot, burn building, attack people you don't like with no fear of them having any sort of self-defense against you, and if they DO defend themselves, THEY are arrested but you are not bothered, attack the foundation the country is built on, that feeds you (for free), houses you (for free), educates you (hmmm, you may have a point on that one, but then I got my education by actually checking stuff and ignoring the gov't indoctrination pump out in the "school", by going to a hidden building called a "library" and reading books and checking so called "facts" I was told) and attacks the same country that gave them these rights (America) and they are some how NOT Anti-American?! Please explain!

Where did White supremacists and militia members come into this? I did not mention them. Did I miss some Klan members (and PLEASE point some out to me, I hear of them and hear of them, and when I see one, it turns out to be a gov't paid thug) or militia member (ditto) burn down half of the cities? Riot and march in the streets while burning down buildings?! Take over 6 square blocks and rape. riot and carry illegal weapons openly?! Details PLEASE!

Or is this just another anti-White/anti-American pro-communst pack of lies?

As to the "attack on CON-gress", so far every person on trial I've seen on what is laughingly called "news" has been a BLM and antifa(ker) openly leftist/communist who was added and abedded by the guards and leftist congresscritters, if you bother to watch what the commies and leftist themselves have posted on socialist media, of themselves, and not a White "supremacist" or "militia member" in the bunch!
 
As you suggest, ANY platform REQUIRED to moderate the speech of their users would never survive; they'd either get litigated out of business or have to hire so many moderators and lawyers that they'd lose money. But Facebook doesn't have "special" immunity, and they didn't become as big as they are because of S230. Other platforms had the same immunity; Facebook got big because it was an attractive alternative to MySpace, and became huge because they violate anti-monopoly rules by quashing or buying up all their competition.
"Because of" in this case was probably used in place of "were allowed by". They would never have gotten where they are without the special immunity given them by section 230. As for no such platform surviving, many actually have. They are called newspapers, for instance. They just can't scale out like FB.

Section 230 was intended to allow a service like Prodigy (or a Catholic BBS, or a gun forum) to pull down copyright infringing material, material off topic or offensive to the membership, or illegal content, without the service being considered a publisher and being liable for the content. See the lawsuits against Compuserve and Prodigy to understand the times.

The phrase "in good faith" is just turning out to be too ambiguous; any organization that would act in good faith turns out to not need it, and organizations that won't can ignore it.
 
This is interesting. the idea that being a person who wants to destroy the county (in this case America) that gives you the freedom to run riot, burn building, attack people you don't like with no fear of them having any sort of self-defense against you, and if they DO defend themselves, THEY are arrested but you are not bothered, attack the foundation the country is built on, that feeds you (for free), houses you (for free), educates you (hmmm, you may have a point on that one, but then I got my education by actually checking stuff and ignoring the gov't indoctrination pump out in the "school", by going to a hidden building called a "library" and reading books and checking so called "facts" I was told) and attacks the same country that gave them these rights (America) and they are some how NOT Anti-American?! Please explain!
First you're going to have to edit down that abomination of a run-on sentence. But in short thinking for yourself is not anti-American.
Where did White supremacists and militia members come into this? I did not mention them.
No, you conveniently forgot them. I added them for you to point out that the white supremacists and militia members and anti-fascists have as much right to think what they want and say what they want (short of instigating violence and insurrection) as do the leftists and communists, none of which makes them anti-American.
Did I miss some Klan members (and PLEASE point some out to me, I hear of them and hear of them, and when I see one, it turns out to be a gov't paid thug) or militia member (ditto) burn down half of the cities? Riot and march in the streets while burning down buildings?! Take over 6 square blocks and rape. riot and carry illegal weapons openly?! Details PLEASE!

Or is this just another anti-White/anti-American pro-communst pack of lies?

As to the "attack on CON-gress", so far every person on trial I've seen on what is laughingly called "news" has been a BLM and antifa(ker) openly leftist/communist who was added and abedded by the guards and leftist congresscritters, if you bother to watch what the commies and leftist themselves have posted on socialist media, of themselves, and not a White "supremacist" or "militia member" in the bunch!
Now you're just making stuff up. Please go find some fact checked media to get your news.
 
Last Edited:
"Because of" in this case was probably used in place of "were allowed by". They would never have gotten where they are without the special immunity given them by section 230. As for no such platform surviving, many actually have. They are called newspapers, for instance. They just can't scale out like FB.

Section 230 was intended to allow a service like Prodigy (or a Catholic BBS, or a gun forum) to pull down copyright infringing material, material off topic or offensive to the membership, or illegal content, without the service being considered a publisher and being liable for the content. See the lawsuits against Compuserve and Prodigy to understand the times.

The phrase "in good faith" is just turning out to be too ambiguous; any organization that would act in good faith turns out to not need it, and organizations that won't can ignore it.
Platform vs. Publisher is the key point in S230. But technology moves faster than legislation so legislation easily becomes obsolete.
 
Platform vs. Publisher is the key point in S230.
Back in the day, Compuserve was the wild west, and Prodigy offered a more manicured experience. I tried both, ended up staying with Compuserve, have the ancient T shirts (which now see service as very retro-nerd wife nightshirts BTW) to prove it. Prodigy lost a lawsuit and Compuserve prevailed in a similar suit, largely due to Compuserve being able to claim they were not acting as an editor, whereas Prodigy DID take down some content, but not the offending content.

This, and concerns regarding the proliferation of MP3 files on the interwebs, and a few other things, spawned the DMCA, which includes the famous section 230. The intent was to allow a more moderated experience in forums it was expected, such as comp.sci.c or whatever, where, as much as we might like a little midget porn, we don't really need to see it right there in the middle of a discussion of the finer details of pointer arithmetic.

Taking down an infringing Metallica track doesn't make the site host liable for every potential case of libel they might overlook.
 
We don't have any information about this aside from their notice on Facebook saying that GoDaddy shut them down. Seems they're back up on the normal domain now.

I guess I better start making arrangements in the event this happens to us...
In Just checking around I saw where guns.com was hacked and service interrupted for a few days as well recently.. Here's a screenshot of some DDos ideas if you also need that..

2021-01-17.png
 
The intent was to allow a more moderated experience in forums it was expected, such as comp.sci.c or whatever, where, as much as we might like a little midget porn, we don't really need to see it right there in the middle of a discussion of the finer details of pointer arithmetic.

Taking down an infringing Metallica track doesn't make the site host liable for every potential case of libel they might overlook.
Agreed. All or nothing arguments just don't take into account reality.
 
Agreed. All or nothing arguments just don't take into account reality.
Yet "in good faith" has proven to be too open to interpretation. It's not an easy problem to solve but it doesn't seem insurmountable. Probably just tighten up the requirements that must be met before a site can claim section 230 protection. Perhaps require a clear and unambiguous set of community standards and also require transparency and uniformity in how they are applied. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

If this were the case, Twitter would lose their 230 protection immediately for not dropping things like calls for murder against Jews living on the West bank, while banning others for similar calls for violence. Facebook would be in similar straits for similar reasons. I suspect that media companies would secretly love to see such requirements because it would free them of the millstone of having to endlessly appease the woke. They would have the freedom to simply point at the law and say "this is clearly the law, we can't break it, sorry".
 
Heads up on weaponsguild.com - GoDaddy has locked them out per WHOIS database.


Domain Information
Dates
  • Registry Expiration: 2022-03-02 01:48:42 UTC
  • Created: 2008-03-02 01:48:42 UTC
yea thats was what i was afraid of when they went dark
 
Perhaps a WARNING STATEMENT should be written into the terms of service (for every forum, social media, etc.. style of web site)? Something like.....

The views expressed by any poster on this site, are their personal views. Posts found here DO NOT necessarily reflect the views of the owners/management of this site. In other words.....If you disagree with certain posters and their posts/views.....it's called "Freedom of Speech". However, be mindful of illegal speech. Crossing that line, would/could result in prosecution under the law.

No one is forcing you to be here.

And the owners and management retain the right to moderate the posts (as it's their web site/platform). Have a nice day.


:s0092:

Aloha, Mark
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top