• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ffs, I didn’t realise this was about the whole “repeal section 230, think of the children!!”

    • Gsus4OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well, the threat was made, let’s see if they follow through and what final shape that takes.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        They barely even need to alter Section 230. What they need to do is actually enforce it.

        The protections Section 230 gives to websites are lost when the website fails to act. These websites have failed to act - as demonstrated by the people who gave their accounts of what happened at the start of the video. The websites can be sued, they can be penalised, but that isn’t happening.

        The government won’t admit they also have responsibility for the failures here. Instead, they’re turning this into an opportunity to repeal legislation that is essential to how the internet functions, all so that they can better control the narratives online.

        • Gsus4OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yea, makes sense, but if it is law already, it should already have been possible to sue these giants: class-action lawsuits that haven’t been brought forward for some reason.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yes I’m not sure why either. It could simply be that no one has brought forward a case, as legal action is expensive and complicated, which can be very daunting and off-putting. It could also be that a judge has ruled and thus established case law that says their Section 230 protection stands - in which case the government should amend the law to more clearly define where the limits are.