3 ms·
Perhaps you missed the "which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other" phrase? That seems to be the author's phrasing of the bi
by zugi 4y ago
Perhaps you missed the "which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other" phrase? That seems to be the author's phrasing of the bill's wording "content that is generated by a user of the service... may be encountered by another user."
A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. But just add a comment section and suddenly you have this world of regulatory requirements with mandates to age-verify all users, which bars anonymity.
In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.
- rlpb 4y ago> A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. I agree, but the article's author's phrasing, IMHO, claims the opposite. > In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance. My possibly contrarian (for HN) opinion is that the Internet's "wild west" approach of disclaiming liability when republishing and algorithmically editorializing content on a platform isn't acceptable, so I'm actually in favour of this. Otherwise we have people being harmed with nobody to hold to account. If when tracking down an offender the offender cannot be found, then they're effectively being shielded by the platform, and the platform should be held liable. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. I don't think this would necessarily exclude all discussion or comment sections because I'm only talking about (my definition) a "platform". I would exclude "mere conduit" direct communication apps. This bill probably doesn't achieve the distinction and exception I want though.