this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)

Asklemmy

45249 readers
1330 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
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
9
How would the repeal of Section 230 impact Lemmt? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 23 hours ago by wuphysics87@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] venotic@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

This is only a USAian issue, effecting USAian hosted instances?

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 5 points 15 hours ago

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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Is this happening?

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago (2 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.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

Bipartisanship

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 6 points 21 hours ago (2 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 9 points 21 hours 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.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I wonder why they don't just keep banning the ones they did like, like they did w tiktok

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

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.