Long thread/55
This is *exactly* what SESTA/FOSTA's advocates were warned of. They were warned. They did it anyway. Fuck those people.
Maybe you have a theory about how platforms can be held civilly liable for their users' speech without harming marginalized people in exactly the way that SESTA/FOSTA, it had better amount to more than "platforms are evil monopolists and CDA 230 makes their lives easier."
55/
Comments
Displaying 0 of 2 comments
Cory Doctorow
In response to this postLong thread/56
Yes, they're evil monopolists. Yes, 230 makes their lives easier. But without 230, *small* forums - private message boards, Mastodon servers, Bluesky, etc - couldn't *possibly* operate.
There's a reason Mark Zuckerberg wants to kill CDA 230, and it's not because he wants to send Facebook to the digital graveyard.
56/
Long thread/57
Zuck knows that FB can operate in a post-230 world by automating the deletion of all controversial speech, and he knows that small services that might "disrupt" Facebook's hegemony would be immediately extinguished by eliminating 230:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/zuckerberg-calls-changes-techs-section-230-protections-rcna486
It's depressing to see so many comrades in the fight against Big Tech getting suckered into carrying water for Zuck, demanding the eradication of CDA 230.
57/
by Cory Doctorow ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 1
Walter van Holst
In response to this postLong thread/55
@pluralistic How about "If you algorithmically recommend content you are liable unless you are a search engine"?
Mentions: @pluralistic@mamot.fr
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 1