Comment on First Trump DOJ Assembled “Tiger Team” To Rewrite Key Law Protecting Online Speech.
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week agolemmy.world (and the entire republishing Fediverse) is protected from the commenter on this post saying “FCK YOU, ORANGE CNT” by Section 230. If they lose that protection, there is no way they or anyone else is going to allow any remotely controversial posts. (Except on X, which of course will enjoy special government protections.)
I don’t get a lot of forum posts on my site, but I will absolutely remove the forums entirely if 230 goes away. There’s no way I’m taking on the liability of all imaginable interpretations of everything anyone could possibly say.
Currently companies like Twitter, Meta, Google etc can control what is shown to users and hide behind this protection.
And this is the way it needs to be. Twitter, Meta, and Google run their own sites in the manner of their choosing. If you don’t like it, you can vote with your feet. They have no legal, ethical, or Constitutional requirement to offer their services to all comers. The alternative is some kind of government control of private companies that we really don’t need ever, and extra especially not in the next four years.
Repealing 230 will absolutely damage social media platforms of all kinds (yeah, except X), including the Fediverse. And it will lead to increased restrictions by those platforms, not decreased.
Section 230 doesn’t apply to lemmy.world already because their instance is hosted in the EU and has to comply with laws that make them responsible for what’s posted already. Or rather, responsible if content isn’t removed quickly.
It’s also why comments supporting Luigi Mangione’s alleged murder are removed as they would make lemmy.world liable.
takeda@lemm.ee 1 week ago
That’s why I said removed or changed. It should be changed in a way that wouldn’t apply to big sites, but still could somehow buy used by hobbyists as it was intended to.
Though I’m quite sure his team will do the exact opposite.
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week ago
So big sites would still be on the hook for content their users post? I’m not sure I understand.
takeda@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Section 230 allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google have mass media that’s also personalized to each recipient. You can influence anyone’s views by serving content that pushes their buttons.
They just use section 230 to be able to push any content, and section 230 protects them from consequences.
Why should they be protected this way? TV, radio, newspapers are liable for posting false information.
You think that social media gives you a platform, but since they decide what others see, this is just an illusion. Your content won’t be visible unless they determines it should be promoted.
This is likely why social media companies are so deep into generative AI. With it they no longer need people to generate specific content.
beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week ago
Typically if the news reports something someone else said and that thing is slanderous, the news station is not held responsible.
Secondly, in general, misinformation is protected speech.
The second they lose protection, that’s the end of that platform. They’re going to get sued into oblivion. The second Lemmy loses protection, that’s the end of that platform.
I agree with you that these sites are awful, but if we’re legislating an off switch for social media platforms, we’re playing with fire.