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 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Techdirt

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:

ABC

“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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 1 day ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)