this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025

156 points (96.4% liked)

News

37400 readers

2058 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

156

While Democracy Burns, Democrats Prioritize… Demolishing Section 230? (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 1 year ago by mox@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You could be forgiven at this point if you think that the Democrats are purposefully just helping fascism along on it's way.

Sure, removing Section 230 means that comment sections and user-generated content will likely just...disappear from the internet.

But I'm sure incentivizing these companies to basically become one-way communications mediums like television will somehow help the rampant censorship and abuse.

Further, it's yet to be even seen how much the Supreme Court is going to let Trump get away with. The courts may be out last enforcement mechanism, and the courts don't have police of their own to enforce their rulings. The US Marshalls report to Trump directly.

God, they're painfully useless and history will remember them as dilly-dallying fuckwits or worse co-conspirators hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can sort of see the justification: the nazi hate machine is powered by twitter, youtube, et al having 230 as a shield to hide behind, and once they start being liable all that hate and outrage bait is likely to evaporate very quickly. It's an ass-backwards way of getting there, but I can see a train of thought where it made some kind of sense.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Yes, but this would require someone to enforce “Nazis bad” and lol @ thinking the current admin would do anything but clearly define anything to the left of Hitler as hate speech.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if you are a dem hating fundamentalist that helped get trump elected then yeah i can see why you would see them as fascist

even the article says

most cases against them would still fail on First Amendment grounds

this is just an attempt to hold them accountable for the weoponised democracy destroying lie machine social media has become

attempting to make the democrats look like nazi collaborators takes the heat off the campaign against harris that got tump elected

i hope daddy putin is suitably grateful for your hard work destroying the US

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article is by Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt. To wit:

Jul 29, 2023Mike Masnick, who founded Techdirt in 1998, writes for an influential audience of lawmakers, C.E.O.s and activists. Somehow, he's still an optimist about the promise of technology.

Well if he's got the ear of influential muckety-mucks what is he telling them? Who is his Senator? Also, not to nitpick but he doesn't actually sound optimistic.

Ooh he's credited with coining "the Streisand effect" so that's cool.

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dems and repubs are the the same side of the same coin dipped in dog shit as far as im concerned.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can I quote that when people say "bOtH sIDEs" is a straw man and no one actually argues it?

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 9 points 1 year ago

Sure.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

basically forcing facepals and the xitter to pay for moderation.

there's three dems and three republQans on it, and it's not the worst idea in the world, but it's a vain attempt to have something, anything be bipartisan which - we all know how that goes.

If hell freezes over again it'll be gutted by amendments and ultimately need to be cleaned up by whatever billionaire pays to run the US next.

[–] ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blanket removing Section 230 does literally the opposite. Without it platforms are only liable for user generated content if they moderate it. before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content. If they didn't moderate they would be considered a content distributor, like a bookstore, which isn't liable for the content of the material they distribute. So repealing it means any website with user generated content would effectively be required to operate like 4chan or Usenet.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content.

So you're saying facebook and twitter who both have had moderation for many years are liable for the content published under that organization?

I don't think so. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong if you got it.

[–] ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, because section 230 has been in effect since long before those companies existed. The law removes liability from companies who decide to moderate user content. If it were repealed they'd have to stop moderation or face liability. The Background and Passage Section on Wikipedia outlines the court cases that led to the law's creation.