> 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 wi

> 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.