How would the repeal of Section 230 impact Lemmt?
-
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.
-
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.
-
That part of the problem seems avoidable. There's no need for an instance to automatically mirror content from other instances.
-
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.
-
I wonder why they don't just keep banning the ones they did like, like they did w tiktok
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bipartisanship
-
This is only a USAian issue, effecting USAian hosted instances?
-
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.
-
Are we getting to the point that doesn't matter? For example, my understanding with icloud not being encrypted in the uk creates a loophole for any law enforcement agency willing to go through them
-
That is certainly true. My concern is if Lemmy doesn't moderate to some arbitrary standard, one post could hold the entire platform liable. Something similar is happening with grindr rn. It's a bunch of think of the children shit. Smaller platforms can be target for political among other reasons and there seems little recourse.
