this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)
Asklemmy
45249 readers
1367 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.