I wonder if people using mastodon know that, without section 230, no one could legally afford to run a mastodon instance in the US. Section 230 protects what we do here every day. Politicians threatening 230 are threatening free speech on the internet.

@fraying Section 230 might be cast aside & something better instituted. It's also possible that servers/instances/Internet providers that ONLY provide a place for people to say stuff, NOT manipulate readers with algorithm-driven whatnot, NOT curate material, NOT scrape others' materials off the Internet & repurpose it, NOT commission their own content β€” might remain protected under 230, while Meta-FB-etc. are justifiably sued.

#social #internet #section230 #writers #publishing

@magdalen do you even know what 230 says? Anything would be additive, not β€œcast aside.”
@fraying Well, given the character count here, I did my best. "Cast aside" seems a reasonable phrase, perhaps I could replace it with seventeen pages of legalese? Basically, 230 is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for me and it is NOT GOOD for people like me. So throw it away and start over. Or fix it. I am not trying to mastermind the exact mechanism for that process.
@magdalen please tell me what 230 says.

@fraying Sure. Here's the Brookings summation from Feb of the then-upcoming proceedings: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/01/31/the-supreme-court-takes-up-section-230/ . Here's Cornell's text of 230: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Here's the EFF version (I loved them back in the early-mid 1990s. Guess what? It's not the early-mid 1990s anymore). https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Hope that's useful.

The Supreme Court takes up Section 230

In February 2023, the Supreme Court will hear two cases which could affect the future of Section 230 and social media's liability protection, including the issue of whether that protection extends to algorithmic recommendations.

Brookings
@magdalen yeah I know what it says. I was wondering if you did. It doesn’t seem like you do.