How would the repeal of Section 230 impact Lemmt?
How would the repeal of Section 230 impact Lemmt?
Here is the text in full if you are unfamiliar:
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Is this happening?
This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Section 230—and the legal immunity it provides to Big Tech—has been on the books since 1996—long before social media became a part of our daily lives. To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness has long since passed.
Here's a less biased source from the Judiciary Committee.
Debate on 230 has been going on for years. The Left wants it gone so they can hold people responsible for crimes like CSAM and revenge porn and other things like spreading hate speech.
As for why others may want it gone, here is a quote from last year from Lindsey Graham:
“However, the real prize will be to make sure social media companies no longer enjoy absolute legal immunity under Section 230," Graham said. "I am committed now more than ever to continue to advance my legislative efforts to ensure that those harmed by social media outlets have the ability to seek justice in American courtrooms. Without repealing Section 230, nothing major will change.”
For the "harm", think if the recent Supreme Court cases where the plaintiffs' harm turned out to be fake but the case was still found in their favor to protect their ”right" to discriminate.
All those complaints about "right wing opinions being suppressed", consider your site illegal.
Organize a general strike, illegal.
Make a "threat" against a politician or CEO, illegal.
Site owners in addition to the person "breaking the law" are now liable, in what I am sure would be uneven enforcement.
Check out the History section of the Section 230 wiki entry to see things that have been tried in the past and imagine those protections gone.
Cutting your ability to receive credit card payments if something against the rules occurs in your site, shielding you from liability if someone uploads their manifesto and commits a crime, someone catfishes a minor in your site, and much more would change.
Definitely not good for anyone running a website hosting users' content. However, I wonder if the Fediverse offers some resilience to this threat, since everyone can have their own server.
Yeah the problem is if someone published something with CSAM from a server you federated with then you are hosting that content. I'm not a fan of 230 since it gives Facebook a free pass for the horable shit they have done but removing 230 is clearly a play to kill off platforms they don't like.
230 is important for online free speech, and just like free speech is used in real life, such as protesting against racism, it also protects those protesting for racism. It sucks in some cases, but people of all perspectives have found this a worthwhile compromise for 30 years.
With 230, we protect our online places of assembly. Without it, our right to gather online is greatly endangered.
Say you record police committing abuse. You want to share it online so people can learn about it and spread the word. Host takes it down to avoid being accused of threatening the officer, liable, inciting violence, etc. If the host doesn't take it down, now you are both open to civil or criminal penalties if they so choose to go after you. If it's legal or not, do you have the means and will to fight them in court?
Yeah, some Nazis get to dog whistle and push misinformation, but 230 also protects you and hosts that let you tell them off and that they aren't wanted. Lose 230, and now you could be the one in trouble or getting your favorite site shut down.
That part of the problem seems avoidable. There's no need for an instance to automatically mirror content from other instances.
I wonder why they don't just keep banning the ones they did like, like they did w tiktok
I think it would put more websites into the same whack-a-mole situation that piracy sites deal with: moving to domains out of US jurisdiction, mirror sites, etc.
It should be a wake up call to get people more involved locally. We still need to preserve what online protections we have, but many of us may need to work on our ability to rally people in person.
Bipartisanship