• takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This was debate during trump’s first term. While originally I was for preserving Section 230, after thinking about it, I’m starting to have doubts if it serves is well though.

    It originally was created when there were forums, Usenet etc run by hobbyists. And it was a non brainier. It was needed, but after 30 years corporations came and basically built their media empires (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc) on a law that removes any accountability from them unlike traditional media. They don’t produce content but they control algorithms that decide content that you see.

    The section 230 at this point is obsolete and perhaps needs to go and maybe be replaced with a better law.

    Sadly I don’t expect a good alternative coming from the upcoming administration.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      That sort of locks in the big players, though, right? If you aren’t making Facebook money, how are you going to afford the liability? What happens to a Lemmy or Mastodon instance with a budget of $2500/yr if the operators suddenly become legally liable for what people say on them? What if they are legally liable for what someone in another instance says which then gets federated?

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yep, this. I think the marks are told “Big Tech” ( which they imagine are being run by liberals) that they are doing something very liberal and must be punished, because something something Hunter’s hard drive, oops, I mean “lap top”.

        I think the reality will be that, yes, all the people running siren servers will consolidate yet even more power and the Internet as a two-way medium is effectively over.