Projects/Repair Work Needed
Onion Logo (Mobile Settings): Status: Mostly Resolved(June 14, 2025)
Onion Logo setting on same line as nav settings (like Kiwifarms)Status:(Not Yet Started)
Badges project: For starting threads that go viral: Status:(Not Yet Started) - June 14, 2025
Blocking Plugin: Status:(Almost Ready -Testing on local server) - June 14, 2025
Text Issue: No difference between bolded text and regular text: Status: (Not Yet Started) -June 14, 2025
Rocket Chat: Status: Finished (June 14, 2025)
The Navigation bar has now been unsticked on all themes
Welcome: If you can rock with us, you are one of us.
Discuss the Flame whatever drama
- Thread starter Mario
- Start date
Vex's thread on Jewsh had implications he was a pedo but that's fine, it's only when somebody Kengle likes that it's a problem.
How many lolcow threads here even get to 3 pages? Not many and based on this example, I would expect even less in the future if this is how content is treated.
How many lolcow threads here even get to 3 pages? Not many and based on this example, I would expect even less in the future if this is how content is treated.
Kengle being Kengle.
Yeah if i didn’t know better i’d say he has to be sent to jelly school
As someone who wrote a thread over on kiwifarms about a genuine pedophile but with no legal consequences of his actions, I whole heartedly disagree with the thread shutting down. Do you know how hard it is to actually convict people of pedophilia? Chris Hanson/Perverted Justice literally had chat logs, pictures of men sending their dick to minors, videos, AND evidence of men showing up at the actual houses to fuck the girls! But hardly ANY of them were convicted of pedophilia crimes, but yet WE know what they are.
What lolcows/halal/kosher are going to be off limits, if we can't expose them for pedophilia? Are we not going to be able to discuss troons next, because of fear of legal implications? Furries? What was the fucking point of this site if genuine threads about problematic individuals in society aren't allowed to be discussed? We can ONLY make threads on people who have been charged through the legal system?
What lolcows/halal/kosher are going to be off limits, if we can't expose them for pedophilia? Are we not going to be able to discuss troons next, because of fear of legal implications? Furries? What was the fucking point of this site if genuine threads about problematic individuals in society aren't allowed to be discussed? We can ONLY make threads on people who have been charged through the legal system?
OneRootinTootinMotherFucker
Remarkable Onion
lolcows are funny. pedophilia isn't funny. if someone is a lolcow and happens to be a pedo, then i dont see a problem with including it in discussion. but if the only reason to do a thread is to "out a pedo", then thats fucking gay.
Funny comes first, there's hundreds of pedos you can easily find by searching MAP communities on Twitter, but they're not all lolcows.
If you're making threads just to "out" anybody in anyway, that's just a personal army request.
Is the only problem with the thread that it had "pedophile" in the title? Seems like if you remove that there's no issues.
Actaully, removing it is editorializing and removes the section-230 immunity the thread had, not that I think flamesoul has the resources to sue
It's ok fren, you're allowed to be wrong Cause it's funny as all hell.
>Chris Hanson/Perverted Justice
Wasn't it due to their own incompetence or mishandling though?
Big if true.
It is. Two of the very few times a section 230 defense failed was when whoever was caught editorializing the data. The one that sticks out was when housemates or something ( a roommate service) let you filter roommates by who they want as a race. Well, this violates a safe-housing law that California (of course) had, and because you were using site tools, the section 230 defense fell flat as its no longer *just* about who's requesting who
There was another time it failed for similar means that was editorializing too. End result: If Kengle (or possibly a mod) edit an OP, they may be seen as the new owner of the OP under a court of law. Otherwise, as I said in chat, they cant be sued. Now OF can be deplatformed but that isn't a legal thing, that's just a host or payment processor saying that we don't want you
Good to know there's precedent, not that governments repeatedly follows their own rules but it's still a comfort.
Not just "some" precedent, a lot
Section 230 - Wikipedia
Section 230 was part of the Communications Decency Act. The CDA were anti-porn bills designed to clean up the then-early internet. So porn would be outlawed, and administrators would be able to moderate and ban users from their usenets or whatever with impunity knowing this. The rest of the CDA was declared unconstitutional... except for Section 230.
Its mostly a good thing. It allows places like Wikipedia to exist, or for you to leave amazon reviews slamming a product (they cant sue amazon for your review). I'd argue that it's too broad and in need of some carve-outs. Stuffs going to get changed on it, its just a matter of when or if the changes actually effect places that are not twitter or facebook.
The flame thread is reopened with a Kiwi drama tag. Be a little patient. I am not doing this to be a dickweed. I am sort of walking a tightrope here. I am scheduling an appointment with an attorney so I have a better understanding of the parameters. When I am better informed, I will be breathing a little easier.
That poor laywer lol. Remember that scene in Better Call Saul when Jimmy gets in the paper but only gets weirdo clients?
Similar threads
