Comment on First Trump DOJ Assembled “Tiger Team” To Rewrite Key Law Protecting Online Speech.
takeda@lemm.ee 1 week agoThat’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.