Vivienne Schell

The world,. unfortunately, isn´t such a lovely place where everybody is of the same opinion, follows the same ideals and all that. It might become such a place in the distant future, hopefully. But i do not see much sense in letting a truck run over you without rasing a "STOP HERE" sign. Gandhi was not politically correct.

1: Hindenburg HAD a choice. 2. The decisive vote in parliament could only be won by the Nazis and their enablers because Hindenburg signed an "exective order" (in that sense) which allowed Hitler (and his right wing conservative cabinet) to arrest the communist representatives before that vote was cast. 3. No, there was no constitutional necessity to make Hitler chancellor. None, zero, zilch.

All parties supporting democracy are antif-fascist by default.

Youbexposed yourself sufficiently. That´s politics, boy.

In fact, the NSDAP party never received more than 34 percent of the votes in free and fair elections. Fact is, that right wing conservative parties and a right wing conservative president enabled them.

Funny when fascists quote Orwell in order to hide that they are fascists.

Fine, if you consider our democracies being fascist dictatorships, join comrade Xi at Hong Kong. I am sure he´ll welcome you.

If that is so we cannot allow you to drive your car on the highway cause you are taking away the precious space in need for my ultrafast ferrari. Which is my religion. Ridiculous.

Democracy has laws and regulations to protect itself from people who threaten it. What you think and what you say is your business, but if you threaten democracy by words and actions you outlaw yourself. No mercy. Democracy does not include surrender.

Fascism isn´t an opinion. It´s a crime against humanity.

Well, so you consider the mob which stormed the capitol, which was ideologically and practically incited, prepared and executed in open by Donald Trump and his enablers NOT being dangerous? Your theory is proven wrong. It only is popular among right wing conservatives who still consider fascists to be their "dirty little mislead family members".

Second Life could be removed for for whatever, like for "being nasty", while "nasty" is what AWS says "nasty" is and includes the definition of that into their ToS and contracts. No one can force the Washington Post into publishing a Trump speech, for example, and that´s not what section 230 regulates/deregulates.Section 230 ony makes it merely impossible to sue a social media company/network/corporation in a civil court for whatever, even if a crime commited by a user is proven - it´s about liability and money in the end, and more or less only about that.

Right, and they popped up elsewhere as soon as they were removed, haha. Looked like some "catch the thief" game.

Did you miss all the overdimensioned "Trump 2020" posters and entire Trumpist sim setups all over the place? There are plenty of hate groups active in SL, ever were.

April 2002: Supreme Court strikes down portions of virtual child porn law Supreme Court strikes down portions of virtual child porn law Justices determined in a mixed opinion that the Child Pornography Prevention Act, designed to ban simulated sex of minors, stretched too far and could affect protected images in movies and on the Internet. The Supreme Court on April 16 struck down portions of a federal child pornography law, ruling that the First Amendment protects the graphic manipulation of images even if it makes it appear that children are engaging in sex. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 expanded current federal laws barring child pornography to include not only images of actual children engaging in explicit sexual conduct but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture.” But in its decision, the High Court determined that the law went to far. The decision struck down two provisions of the law outlawing visual materials that “appear to be a minor” or “conveys the impression” that a minor was involved. Parts of the law banning images using real minors had not been challenged. “The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a 6-3 majority that agreed to strike down both of the challenged provisions as overbroad. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer joined Kennedy’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed that the government could not outlaw making young-looking adults appear as children, giving that part of the opinion a 7-2 majority. But she sided with dissenters Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia in support of upholding the provision banning computer-generated images. “The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation’s child pornography laws is a compelling one,” Rehnquist said. The law “is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry, challenged the law. The groups argued that the prohibition could encircle legitimate adult expression, making it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies “Traffic” or “Lolita.” The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press joined a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union arguing that the law was unconstitutional. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) — PT I am not aware of a later decision, but maybe someone has a follow-up decision documented. As far as i know the 2002 decision is still valid.

Depends on the kind of porn. Virtual child porn is a crime in almost any other country on the planet. No one there cares that the ones who drive the avatars are adult, what matters is the criminal act and the images themselves. Last year some brit was sentenced to a few years prison for spreading such smut (not even for creating it). And there are many, many more prosecutions and charges all over the world. And even if the servers are located in the US, as soon as section 230 falls the hosting companies can be held liable by interested groups located off the US. If big tech wants to save their safe harbor, they need to take responsibility and act according to common sense before something much worse than solid self-policing will get them and the entire internet into some existential trouble. So no, adult content is a concern, and AWS will stop with hosting the excesses of that - which might deprave them of their business basics - anytime soon. Time is running out.

Yes, absolutely. But Second Life as content hosting unit always was in a precarious place. That´s the default state. Regardless company owned servers or Amazon owned servers. The Amazon move only added one more risk factor. Question is if the added risk is worth the benefits, and we only can speculate on that - for now.

Well, in fact the capitol riot and Trump´s "March on Washington" and Mussolini´s fascist "March on Rome" are related to each other in some ways. And while there surely were some thugs waving Nazi flags at the capitol, the overall impression is not nazi, but 1920´s fascism paired with modern habits and clad in orange hair.

I beg to differ between upright conservative republicans and a white supremacy fascist bunch of knownothings. I never understood why Linden Lab tolerated such excesses and never will. And moving to amazon servers is risky, too. But, frankly spoken, i do not see much benefit in tolerating people promoting child pornography (which HAPPENS in SL), even if it is legal - in graphic form - in the US (the supreme court decided that). Linden Lab should shovel the smut out of Second Life, anyway, and not only the political one. If they do, there will be no issue anywhere.

What are you scared of? The overly dramatic and blown out of any proportion Trump mob or the moderators at the forums?

Took them five years and a failed coup. Not worth the medal of honor.

Agreed. But don´t forget that these (politically roooted) rules are variable. Imagine Trump´s coup would be successful and section 230 would be altered in the fascist way (what he already tried to do). Also, I do not see Linden Lab regulating content in SL overly. That´s all more or less half heartened and has an alibi function. At the snow mountains at Sansara i saw an totally outrageous. prominent white supremacy propaganda set up (charcterising Obama as dude and his wife as whore) all over the Obama years. I´ll not paste the screenshots here, they are too outrageous and i want to avoid spreading fascist propagana. Hundreds of AR´s didn´t change that. Unfortunately, the laissez faire of social media companies lead to the (bipartisan) attempts to alter section 230. And that is truly dangerous for the entire internet, not only Second Life.

Fine, then let´s talk about Section 230, for example, which is straight on topic. i don´t mind if you prefer discussing what color the orange cloud should have to look more attractive, while the most significant ground for Second Life, the internet universe and all the rest is rooted deeply in politics. If you negate the political reality all this here and more is built upon, then don´t be surprised when your windlighted pixel skies will go physical and crash on you one day.

I agree. I cn confirm that some sims banned this avatar for "inappropiate behavior"...only because he was not mesh but classic!

Well, the Spanish are a few years ahead, they ousted and condemned Franco long ago. The Americans stiil have to oust and condemn their very own one.