4 ms·
Another valid outcome might be writing laws which hold social media companies liable for civil penalties for not properly moderating their platforms when events
by mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
Another valid outcome might be writing laws which hold social media companies liable for civil penalties for not properly moderating their platforms when events like this happen.
- ceejayoz 4y agoI got a Facebook community standards violation for linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey. Nothing else, just the link. False positives are already awful without adding legal liability for not acting to the mix.
- vharuck 4y agoIf Section 230 [0] were repealed (which is what those laws would do), I can't imagine any website would allow user-generated content without (a) requiring a lawyer's approval of every submission before hosting it, and (b) buying expensive insurance to pay for litigation. It's unlikely we'd still have hobby chat forums, HN, or GitHub. Also, check out the cases where Section 230 has been used [1]. Without it, sites would have to prevent defamation (i.e., they need to know whether any content is untrue). Libraries would not provide computers connected to the internet. Repealing Section 230 is a "common sense" proposal that falls apart when considering the actual results. If there's a good proposal for a replacement, I haven't seen it. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- eli 4y agoThat sounds Constitutionally questionable and completely unworkable. May as well just outlaw social media.