I think whenever I see a headline or a person making some claim about #section230 the first reaction needs to be, “Okay, section 230 of what? What do you think that refers to?”
So many people have no idea what section 230 actually says, or does, but at least this response would help weed out the most uninformed of the people spouting out about it.
it is extremely funny to me that a lot of the people who want to slash or repeal #Section230 are the same people condemning #NPR's Katherine Maher for her past comments they think are "anti-First Amendment"
It's a perennial hot topic, especially you read certain "dirty" tech blogs. It is presented in such blogs as an article of faith, an inherent good, The Reason We Are All Here.
But is it?
I see the storyline: 230 made it safe for capital to create sites where they source free labour to create "content" and profit from that content, and therefore, your grandparents are now on the internet, just like you asked.
Hmm. Our grandparents on the internet, that worked out absolutely great.
I wrote a little bit about the recent Supreme Court cases covering Florida and Texas' efforts to legislate community, moderation, trust, and safety on a state-level.
I tend not to worry about the Facebooks of the world and, instead, concern myself most with the next generation of teenagers doing stuff online. Because that was me, two years after Section 230 passed in the U.S.
Just remember, when you say things like "community management/content moderation is new" to make it seem like you're on the cutting edge of some previously unexplored valley, you sound like you're a Justice on the Supreme Court. We're around 50 years deep now.
The Senate hearing on social media was such a shitshow BTW. They came with genuine issues about how social media harms us, and transformed them into meaningless virtue signaling about stuff like
"have you paid restitution to people who have been harassed online"
"are you a member of the Chinese Communist Party"
The only real actionable thing they discussed was gutting #Section230, which would basically end every social media website as we know it today. No #Mastodon, no Fediverse, only canned responses and maybe a couple giants like #Facebook could keep ticking.
Oh, and one of the cosponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act, #MarshaBlackburn, is doing it because she hates #transgender people.
The only real actionable thing they discussed was gutting #Section230, which would basically end every social media website as we know it today. No #Mastodon, no Fediverse, only canned responses and maybe a couple giants like #Facebook could keep ticking.
Oh, and one of the cosponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act, #MarshaBlackburn, is doing it because she hates #transgender people.
The only real actionable thing they discussed was gutting #Section230, which would basically end every social media website as we know it today. No #Mastodon, no Fediverse, only canned responses and maybe a couple giants like #Facebook could keep ticking.
One of the cosponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act, #MarshaBlackburn, is doing it because she hates #transgender people:
Question for the room: Does CivitAI's new "bounties" feature for requesting images of real people, complete with a virtual currency for bounty payment, vitiate #Section230 protection for bounty results that are illegal? (This is gonna be used mostly for nonconsensual pornographic deepfakes of women & girls. That's it.)
Does the bounty contribute to the resulting content's illegality under Roommates?
Did CivitAI even bother to think about 230 before launching this?
🚨 Excited to drop my new essay, Section 230’s Debts (forthcoming in the First Amendment Law Review), which catalogues the accumulation of internet law and policy debt under #Section230 and how the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of the #NetChoice cases might (or might not) pay it off. 1/ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4624865
#SocialMedia#Depresssion#MentalHealth#Section230: "Meta Platforms Inc., Snap Inc., TikTok Inc., and Google LLC can’t invoke the First Amendment or the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230—a decades-old legal shield for online services—to block allegations that they designed their platforms to addict young people causing depression and anxiety, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ruled in an 89-page order.
The lawsuits advance a novel legal theory that attempts to treat social media platforms as defectively designed products to bypass Section 230, which has been nearly bulletproof in protecting platforms from suits based user content. Kuhl said that while social media platforms aren’t “products” for the purpose of a product liability claim, the suits sufficiently argued that companies have been careless, a negligence theory “that is not barred by federal immunity or by the First Amendment.”"