- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Supposedly he’s gunning for Section 230. Geniuses like Clownfish TV think this would be a good thing, then wonders if it might bite “content creators”.
Yah think? If the qons get rid of Section 230, you think platforms will let these yahoos spew their nonsense w/o fear of being sued for it? LOLOLOL…
Also: why do the qons think they are being censored? WTF? All I see is their stuff being pushed, all the time. Where is the leftist equivalent, FFS?
This was debate during trump’s first term. While originally I was for preserving Section 230, after thinking about it, I’m starting to have doubts if it serves is well though.
It originally was created when there were forums, Usenet etc run by hobbyists. And it was a non brainier. It was needed, but after 30 years corporations came and basically built their media empires (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc) on a law that removes any accountability from them unlike traditional media. They don’t produce content but they control algorithms that decide content that you see.
The section 230 at this point is obsolete and perhaps needs to go and maybe be replaced with a better law.
Sadly I don’t expect a good alternative coming from the upcoming administration.
That sort of locks in the big players, though, right? If you aren’t making Facebook money, how are you going to afford the liability? What happens to a Lemmy or Mastodon instance with a budget of $2500/yr if the operators suddenly become legally liable for what people say on them? What if they are legally liable for what someone in another instance says which then gets federated?
The “leftist equivalent” is called reality, and that’s what they want to ban.
