Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   #DiaperDon   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, shot  
•       •       •

7427 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2020 at 2:16 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



219 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-27 12:35:40 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-11-27 12:51:52 AM  
He is the master of making a bad situation infinitely worse.

Sometimes the best course of action is to just STFU!
 
2020-11-27 12:55:57 AM  
at first I thought this was gonna be another memorable of him golfing and obviously having a bowel discharge in his pants. This is mildly better but like barely. When is he gonna realize that his crap isn't a national security event until his stooges are following his crackpot orders?
 
2020-11-27 1:05:01 AM  
Lol, what a farking dipshiat.
 
2020-11-27 1:05:54 AM  
Welp, looks like DiaperDon's took another Trumpy Dumpy and needs changing.
 
2020-11-27 1:09:16 AM  
He's a week away from being found naked, covered in feces, and in what passes for a fetal position, huddled behind the Resolute Desk.

What a shart on humanity.
 
2020-11-27 1:13:58 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 1:16:10 AM  
SoOo, does he want the ability to sue every individual Twitter user for calling him names?
Or just Twitter as a company, for allowing them to call him names?

/sidenote: if section 230 is terminated. I'm suing Drew for wasting my evenings, and also forcing me to pay for it!
//I HAVE BIGLY STANDING!!!
 
2020-11-27 1:25:11 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Welp, looks like DiaperDon's took another Trumpy Dumpy and needs changing.


Its like taking a Trump and wiping your Pence
 
2020-11-27 1:38:27 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 1:55:45 AM  
That table has seen some things
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 1:59:56 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:09:04 AM  

Ass_Master_Flash: That table has seen some things
[Fark user image image 425x282]
[Fark user image image 425x425]
[Fark user image image 425x340]


Notice that he's the only one who had that ridiculous mini seal affixed to the desk?  It makes it look even more comically small.
 
2020-11-27 2:19:49 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


INVISIBLE TINY SCOOTER HANDLEBARS!!
 
2020-11-27 2:20:50 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:20:52 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Shake That Ass Bitch
Youtube BkR6KrEyNwo
 
2020-11-27 2:21:15 AM  
Die mad about it, you salty biatch.
 
2020-11-27 2:23:32 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Welp, looks like DiaperDon's took another Trumpy Dumpy and needs changing.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:23:40 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:25:53 AM  

Circusdog320: He is the master of making a bad situation infinitely worse.

Sometimes the best course of action is to just STFU!


Maybe we could get Barbara Streisand to retweet it.
 
2020-11-27 2:26:11 AM  

Circusdog320: He is the master of making a bad situation infinitely worse.

Sometimes the best course of action is to just STFU!


Donnie*? Keep quiet? Unpossible.

In this instance, good.
 
2020-11-27 2:26:50 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:27:29 AM  
LMAO
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:28:29 AM  
If he's pissed its because he's seen people laughing at him.

GOOD. EAT SHIAT YOU PIECE OF CRAP.
 
2020-11-27 2:28:59 AM  
As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?
 
2020-11-27 2:29:30 AM  
Shut it, Donald, you NEED Twitter. Without Twitter you've got no outlet for your hourly moans and gripes.
 
2020-11-27 2:30:19 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/from last Tuesday
 
2020-11-27 2:33:06 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:33:37 AM  

Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?


From eff.org:

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"(47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.
 
2020-11-27 2:35:35 AM  
well I am just at a loss for words here.
 
2020-11-27 2:36:10 AM  
he wants to repeal Section 230 for... NATIONAL SECURITY.


do eeeeeet!

i wanna see what happens to Parler without 230
 
2020-11-27 2:36:20 AM  

Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?


It's a black ops division that has no headquarters.
 
2020-11-27 2:36:25 AM  

Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?


It's the safe harbor provision of the 1996 Telecommunications act.

Basically Fark threads and everywhere else people post online are like maritime harbors. Drew can't really control who stops by to litter the place up, like pirates at sea sailing into a harbor the port can't really prevent that, so the port isn't held liable if pirates sail in.

There's a little more complexity but that's that basic gist.

Trump wants to be able to sue twitter for noncrimes and Vladimir Putin probably told him to scrap section 230 because the whole point of Putin's internet war is to force America to regulate the internet so that only a tiny minority may write on it because like Trump, Putin is intolerant of dissent.
 
2020-11-27 2:36:52 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:37:11 AM  

ekdikeo4: Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?

From eff.org:

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"(47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.


Ah. Thank you.
 
2020-11-27 2:37:49 AM  

Purple_Urkle: Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?

It's the safe harbor provision of the 1996 Telecommunications act.

Basically Fark threads and everywhere else people post online are like maritime harbors. Drew can't really control who stops by to litter the place up, like pirates at sea sailing into a harbor the port can't really prevent that, so the port isn't held liable if pirates sail in.

There's a little more complexity but that's that basic gist.

Trump wants to be able to sue twitter for noncrimes and Vladimir Putin probably told him to scrap section 230 because the whole point of Putin's internet war is to force America to regulate the internet so that only a tiny minority may write on it because like Trump, Putin is intolerant of dissent.


Damn it,
I got the year right, but the name wrong.

The rest of what I babbled about sea harbors is okay, the Putin stuff is a very, very strong suspicion.
 
2020-11-27 2:38:04 AM  
Section 230 goes, half the internet is kaput.

He'll probably really try to do it.
 
2020-11-27 2:38:39 AM  
Trump and his followers are so easily triggered.
 
2020-11-27 2:40:05 AM  
What a butthurt little man.

He can dish it.  Will call people names all under the sun.  But wants to repeal the only thing him and his followers have protecting them on the internet so people can't make fun of him


He is weak.

Weak bodied.

Weak minded.

Weak.
 
2020-11-27 2:44:00 AM  

Farking Clown Shoes: [Fark user image image 780x439]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:44:36 AM  
I love how much diaper don is upsetting him. How can it be shoved in his face even more?
 
2020-11-27 2:46:12 AM  

dkulprit: What a butthurt little man.

He can dish it.  Will call people names all under the sun.  But wants to repeal the only thing him and his followers have protecting them on the internet so people can't make fun of him


He is weak.

Weak bodied.

Weak minded.

Weak.


Weak bladdered?
 
2020-11-27 2:46:14 AM  

Purple_Urkle: Purple_Urkle: Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?

It's the safe harbor provision of the 1996 Telecommunications act.

Basically Fark threads and everywhere else people post online are like maritime harbors. Drew can't really control who stops by to litter the place up, like pirates at sea sailing into a harbor the port can't really prevent that, so the port isn't held liable if pirates sail in.

There's a little more complexity but that's that basic gist.

Trump wants to be able to sue twitter for noncrimes and Vladimir Putin probably told him to scrap section 230 because the whole point of Putin's internet war is to force America to regulate the internet so that only a tiny minority may write on it because like Trump, Putin is intolerant of dissent.

Damn it,
I got the year right, but the name wrong.

The rest of what I babbled about sea harbors is okay, the Putin stuff is a very, very strong suspicion.


I find pirate stories relevant to my interests and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2020-11-27 2:46:42 AM  

Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?


Protections that make hosting websites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and fark not liable for user generated content.

So I could slander him and I fark wouldn't be responsible.

Or like 8 chan isn't held responsible for people saying they're going to commit crimes and then doing so.

Or let's say someone sets up a sale of their limited edition maga hat in facebook, and the person buying it ends up robbFacebook, well facebook isn't liable for facilitating that.

So it is basically the reason the internet is the way it is today, and has as much free speech on it.

These companies aren't going to host anyone with a whiff of slander on them, let alone any extreme ideologies.

shiat will have to he screened before posted.

It would destroy the internet as we know it if it is gotten rid of.

But he wants to get rid of it.... in the name of free speech, so he can sue Twitter.  You know, keeping people's free speech at bay by SLAPP suits.

fark this little manbaby.
 
2020-11-27 2:47:08 AM  

Hagbardr: dkulprit: What a butthurt little man.

He can dish it.  Will call people names all under the sun.  But wants to repeal the only thing him and his followers have protecting them on the internet so people can't make fun of him


He is weak.

Weak bodied.

Weak minded.

Weak.

Weak bladdered?


You could say that.
 
2020-11-27 2:52:27 AM  

Smoking GNU: ekdikeo4: Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?

From eff.org:

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF's help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"(47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

Ah. Thank you.


To add to the confusion, there's a whole load of crazy misinterpretations of CDA 230 conservatives hold that bear little resemblance to the actual law and aren't necessarily even coherent with each other.  Here's a handy link that covers most of the common misinterpretations.
 
2020-11-27 2:52:32 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-11-27 2:52:35 AM  

Jaws_Victim: I love how much diaper don is upsetting him. How can it be shoved in his face even more?


Maybe a journalist can throw an adult diaper at him at the next press conference.
 
2020-11-27 2:54:28 AM  

Redh8t: SoOo, does he want the ability to sue every individual Twitter user for calling him names?
Or just Twitter as a company, for allowing them to call him names?

/sidenote: if section 230 is terminated. I'm suing Drew for wasting my evenings, and also forcing me to pay for it!
//I HAVE BIGLY STANDING!!!


If he gets it, I'm farked.  The only thing I use twitter for is calling him names!

/and giving minor celebrities cat health advice, apparently
 
2020-11-27 2:55:12 AM  

red5ish: Purple_Urkle: Purple_Urkle: Smoking GNU: As a non-american, can someone enlighten me as to what ''Section 230'' refers to?

It's the safe harbor provision of the 1996 Telecommunications act.

Basically Fark threads and everywhere else people post online are like maritime harbors. Drew can't really control who stops by to litter the place up, like pirates at sea sailing into a harbor the port can't really prevent that, so the port isn't held liable if pirates sail in.

There's a little more complexity but that's that basic gist.

Trump wants to be able to sue twitter for noncrimes and Vladimir Putin probably told him to scrap section 230 because the whole point of Putin's internet war is to force America to regulate the internet so that only a tiny minority may write on it because like Trump, Putin is intolerant of dissent.

Damn it,
I got the year right, but the name wrong.

The rest of what I babbled about sea harbors is okay, the Putin stuff is a very, very strong suspicion.

I find pirate stories relevant to my interests and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


Thanks for being cool.

This is a really fun book:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.