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.
Working on a new online gaming platform. There's internal debate as to whether to allow players to message each other and post in public spaces. It would make it a lot more fun for playere, but the risk of losing Section 230 'safe harbor' protections is a big concern. Also, the cost of moderation.
Not at all.
Hardly any Lemmy instance is hosted in the US and other countries never had this section to begin with.
Most Lemmy instances already need to comply with laws making them responsible for keeping illegal content up.
This is only a USAian issue, effecting USAian hosted instances?
Are we getting to the point that doesn't matter? For example, my understanding with icloud not being encrypted in the uk creates a loophole for any law enforcement agency willing to go through them
Two sides on this one.
On one hand, it would be fucking nice for some platforms to be held liable whenever doxxing happens. Because I can tell you, nothing good ever comes out of being doxxed. It would also mean that, people like Spez would have to run around the clock, sanitizing Reddit because he knows a lot of shit happens on that platform every day. In this sense, I would love Section 230 to be sunsetted.
The other hand, if this is going to be projected as a means to illegalize the expression against politicians and the US government, they're now stepping on a clear violation of the first amendment. Onslaught of lawsuits and contests incoming that would give politicians headaches.
That is certainly true. My concern is if Lemmy doesn't moderate to some arbitrary standard, one post could hold the entire platform liable. Something similar is happening with grindr rn. It's a bunch of think of the children shit. Smaller platforms can be target for political among other reasons and there seems little recourse.
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.