Repeal of section 230 = more censorship ?

[Due]

If you are making money from tubes, social media, any kind of networking you should be worried..... Even if you are sig-whoring you sig for post on a board every post you make may become subject to review or the site owners could become liable for

https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/29/...s-talks-checks

But hey, at least we may get $2K right ?

[zijlstravideo]

Well, the large social networks are under pressure for a long time now. And with "The Hub" events lately, I think it has been pretty obvious for a while now that things are about to change. Sooner or later, platforms with "user generated content" are likely going to get a real hard time operating.

(For smaller communities that can maintain strict moderation, it isn't going to be much of a problem, I assume).

My prediction - Twitter and Reddit will ban adult content entirely as soon as in the upcoming year, hoping it will save their ass. But they will probably follow the same path as Tumblr went, and as a result - losing most of its userbase and market value.

[SpicyM]

Way to go!

Time to make site owners responsible for the content they put / ignore / tolerate on their websites! With Article 13 in EU this will be a nice bitch-slap for thieves. Just hope other countries will follow suit.




(absolutely zero fucks given about social networks, fuck them)

[CaptainHowdy]

[zijlstravideo]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

(absolutely zero fucks given about social networks, fuck them)

... While posting on a message board.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by zijlstravideo

... While posting on a message board.

exactly... zero fucks...

[zijlstravideo]

I truly hope GFY will start censoring foul language by replacing all words on the "naughty list" with awesome GIFs starring horses and glitters and all that SHIT

[crockett]

Originally Posted by zijlstravideo

Well, the large social networks are under pressure for a long time now. And with "The Hub" events lately, I think it has been pretty obvious for a while now that things are about to change. Sooner or later, platforms with "user generated content" are likely going to get a real hard time operating.

(For smaller communities that can maintain strict moderation, it isn't going to be much of a problem, I assume).

My prediction - Twitter and Reddit will ban adult content entirely as soon as in the upcoming year, hoping it will save their ass. But they will probably follow the same path as Tumblr went, and as a result - losing most of its userbase and market value.

Think about this website for a moment... What if there was no moderation here and people who were in the shady side of shit were free to post snuff films or CP. Is it not the forum owner's responsibility to remove that content?

Of course it is, and yes this is a user-generated site and a social network but you wouldn't think twice about them deleting CP & snuff films ect because obviously, they should if it were ever posted.

So why would anyone think that other user-generated social media platforms shouldn't be responsible for moderating their content? Of course, they should be. If you think you can hide from responsibility as a site owner by claiming user uploaded content.. well you will be in for bad surprise one day.

[zijlstravideo]

I agree, of course large scaled websites should moderate the stuff thats being posted as well. I also think the changes "The Hub" made are a good thing, and I think mainstream sites should follow their example by verifying their content creators. Especially sites like Print on Demand stores (For example, browse Redbubble.com for a minute and you'll see about 100 "stores" selling straight up copyrighted photos, even trademarked logo's and such. It's a shit hole...), same goes for Youtube. This will only result in higher quality content being sold, and shakes out those that are looking to make a quick buck by selling stolen works.

There is however a big but(t)... I don't have much faith in goverments getting too much involved in "internet things" either, to be honest. Just look at EU's cookie law, it's just one of those examples of laws that don't solve anything, instead, just annoy everyone.
This new (upcoming) EU law seems over the top as well, as it would mean a platform like Reddit or Twitter pretty much probably won't be able to exist, simply because of this new "link tax" law, which would force aggregating websites (I guess, tubes with thumbs fall under the same category) having to pay large bills for the links posted on their site.

Unless they are willing to pay for each link shared, they are likely going to run into trouble. Goodbye circle jerks, I guess? Goodbye search engines? Running a site similar as Reddit, you're in bad luck! In other words, it's going to become really complicated, to say the least.

Again, changes can be good, but goverments getting too much involved can become worrying too, as you'll never know what kind of unnecessary rules "they" can come up with next. Eventually it might come back to bite you or me in the ass (for whatever reason) in the future just as bad (even without having any user generated content on your sites, but just for having the wrong business model).

[Due]

Originally Posted by crockett

Think about this website for a moment... What if there was no moderation here and people who were in the shady side of shit were free to post snuff films or CP. Is it not the forum owner's responsibility to remove that content?

Of course it is, and yes this is a user-generated site and a social network but you wouldn't think twice about them deleting CP & snuff films etc because obviously, they should if it were ever posted.

So why would anyone think that other user-generated social media platforms shouldn't be responsible for moderating their content? Of course, they should be. If you think you can hide from responsibility as a site owner by claiming user uploaded content.. well you will be in for bad surprise one day.

Of course it's their responsibility to remove illegal content, section 230 doesn't give you immunity to allow illegal content on your platform. It gives you immunity to keep operating an open platform as long as you can show you actively remove illegal content and ban repeat offenders.

Without section 230 places like facebook, twitter, redit, youtube, gfy.com suddenly assume liability for what the average John Doe is posting, suddenly Karen can now sue GFY.
Another example Trump could sue GFY, YouTube & ATT because John Doe posted a viral video about some stupid shit Trump did on Youtube using his ATT internet and shared it on GFY.

This isn't about porn, porn will be impacted, it can have a huge impact on our ability to "speak freely online". Imagine a debate where each answer have to be manually moderated

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by Due

Of course it's their responsibility to remove illegal content, section 230 doesn't give you immunity to allow illegal content on your platform. It gives you immunity to keep operating an open platform as long as you can show you actively remove illegal content and ban repeat offenders.

Without section 230 places like facebook, twitter, redit, youtube, gfy.com suddenly assume liability for what the average John Doe is posting, suddenly Karen can now sue GFY.
Another example Trump could sue GFY, YouTube & ATT because John Doe posted a viral video about some stupid shit Trump did on Youtube using his ATT internet and shared it on GFY.

This isn't about porn, porn will be impacted, it can have a huge impact on our ability to "speak freely online". Imagine a debate where each answer have to be manually moderated

Open your own website and feel free to publish whatever you want... You sure can speak freely. ...but be prepared to take responsibility for that. You will be the moderator of your own content.

All this crying about internet freedom is spread by people who are affraid of losing access to free content online, cause they know it's pirated. Free speech doesn't mean you can openly spread anything. There are already laws in place that limit public speech.

Both TV and radio stations are liable for what they broadcast and no, they can't claim this is against freedom of speech - it's their medium and their responsibility to keep an eye on the content. They won't broadcast pirated films or songs. They are not allowed to let politicians spread racial hatred, which is a criminal offence, and call it freedom of speech. So why should internet platforms be exempted from what is the norm in other mass media???

Time to make them liable...

[jsmih]

I don't get Trump's push to repeal it, other than just his being butt hurt at Twitter and throwing a tantrum. After all, the new rules would apply to right wing sites like Parlor as much as Twitter.

[Due]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

Open your own website and feel free to publish whatever you want... You sure can speak freely. ...but be prepared to take responsibility for that. You will be the moderator of your own content.

All this crying about internet freedom is spread by people who are affraid of losing access to free content online, cause they know it's pirated. Free speech doesn't mean you can openly spread anything. There are already laws in place that limit public speech.

Both TV and radio stations are liable for what they broadcast and no, they can't claim this is against freedom of speech - it's their medium and their responsibility to keep an eye on the content. They won't broadcast pirated films or songs. They are not allowed to let politicians spread racial hatred, which is a criminal offence, and call it freedom of speech. So why should internet platforms be exempted from what is the norm in other mass media???

Time to make them liable...

You are wrong, I’m against hate speech but it is a first amendment right.
Only commercial speech have limited first amendment protection.

For the tv stations, have you heard about freedom of the press ?

As far as my own sites, I opened my first site almost 25 years ago, I’m fairly familiar with how that works.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by Due

You are wrong, I’m against hate speech but it is a first amendment right.
Only commercial speech have limited first amendment protection.

For the tv stations, have you heard about freedom of the press ?

As far as my own sites, I opened my first site almost 25 years ago, I’m fairly familiar with how that works.

Dude, it's a bit different in Europe. Public hate speech is not protected, no matter what kind of freedom you call that. And since porn is now mostly produced in Europe, it sure does matter what is the norm here.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean there is no responsibility for what you publish. Magazines sold with no age restrictions can't publish porn and expect they won't be held responsible for that, newspapers can't publish libellous articles based on their own made-up claims attacking persons of no public interest and be protected by freedom of speech. There are limits and those limits are the rights of other individuals.

[zijlstravideo]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

With Article 13 in EU this will be a nice bitch-slap for thieves.

And by introducing Article 11 at the same time, the EU also likes to throw in some knockout punches to online businesses (within the EU) that completely rely on traffic coming in through sources like Google News, social media platforms, as well as sites like Pinterest, by introducing a retarded law like the "link tax".

One step forward, three steps back.