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
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
Techdirt
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:
ABC
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.
That part of the problem seems avoidable. There's no need for an instance to automatically mirror content from other instances.