4 ms·
How?
by cblconfederate 5y ago
How?
- roenxi 5y agoI dunno there are lots of ways to get to the same place. Maybe send in lots of expensive lobbiests, make sure the law is vague and complicated, then after it is implemented small social media companies can't legally form because they can't hire enough lawyers/provide better services. And the big companies reveal some sort of loophole that formed in the complexity that lets them keep making money with only minor tweaks to their business. The politicians throw up their hands and blame the other politicians/the 1%/the unvaccinated/immigrants/young people/rap music/whatever for why the mess can't be worked out. The problem around sec. 230 is that large groups of people disagree. Trying to solve that with law is going to be ugly. The politicians aren't going to roll in and make a useful contribution to how algorithms work technically, or civility on the internet. That is hard enough to do with years of experience working with algorithms - without having to run the lobbyist & special interest gauntlet like legislation does.
- cblconfederate 5y agoI think the existence of 230 has always rubbed many people off in the wrong way. Newspapers had reader-contributed columns forever, but they were never given as much immunity as internet services get. But because the internet was exciting people never questioned it. 230 itself is a loophole . I dont know how it should change either, but there should be a broader debate.