If Section 230 is removed, NAS will shut down.
I cannot be liable for what people post. Nobody can offer a service like that.
The ability to censor people without liability may need to be changed, but removing section 230 is NOT the answer.
If Section 230 is removed, NAS will shut down.
I cannot be liable for what people post. Nobody can offer a service like that.
The ability to censor people without liability may need to be changed, but removing section 230 is NOT the answer.
@eriner Enter NOSTR
@adam I mean, advocating for the repeal of 230 is advocating for the death of the internet as we know it.
The only things that would survive are self-hosted blogs
without comments and corporate media websites.
It would absolutely squander the US' legal advantage and crush innovators who use the internet as a source of education and information sharing.
Even email would be killed - everyone would have to self-host their own SMTP server. And if I can't manage delivery, neither can grandma.
@adam Nostr relays would be the same. If the content is distributed to others, and I didn’t write it, I can’t offer that service if section 230 is repealed, regardless of the protocol.
@eriner
I know you can't. I'm not sure this would be bad for the world.
@adam I think you and John should both reconsider your stance on the issue, unless you intend to openly advocate for the death of the interactive internet and would rather we have nothing but shit Tumblr blogs written by brooding 16 year olds.
> we had a perfectly functioning decentralized web 24 years ago
AFAIK Section 230 went into place in 1996, so the web 24 years ago was governed by Section 230.
> And we DO pay for our own servers
Without section 230, will whoever (Mark) hosts this content be willing to take liability for everything you and Dvorak say? Will his carrier (ISP)?
It's not about self-managed but true ownership, and to be not liable for others you have to own the whole stack. See: kiwifarms
> Artists would host their images on their own feeds
They're going to host their own static content servers? Will their residential ISP accept that liability?
> Email is not publishing
I guarantee I can find a lawyer and a case where a jury will, or has, disagreed with this.
I LOVE you for hosting and managing NAS and consider it among the top valuable contributions. And I certainly understand the enormous effort it takes to keep it running.
I am simultaneously sad that our freeze peach has blocked millions from interacting with our community. The Fediverse is the inverse of the RSS infrastructure we managed on an individual basis back in the day.
Its not bad to consider a different world from time to time.
/5
Have we honestly improved anything since those tumblr blog days?
Just more shit from more places. Its made censorship easier, propaganda a snap and demonstrably has degraded mental health.
/4
Podcasts are proof that this model has staying power. And once we took control back from Apple seve seen massive innovation with over 25 new podcast features and a new messaging bus through the lightning network.
/3
@eriner
Email is not publishing. I do not see that as a section 230 service.
I like this argument.
We would have a flourishing decentralized web, not the crap big tech has kettled us into.
/2
@adam And to take it a step further, you and John would likely have to host ALL of the infra yourselves.
From the podcast mp3+rss distribution, to the art generator.
I'm sure Sir Paul wouldn't be jumping for joy at the idea of being personally liable if someone posted art to the art generator that defamed some unnamed large media corporation and was subsequently personally sued for it.
With respect brother's, we had a perfectly functioning decentralized web 24 years ago. RSS and aggregators.
We had newsfeeds without algos, pingbacks, trackbacks. The semantic web.
And we DO pay for our own servers for RSS and mp3s. Just as I pay for my own server for curry.com etc.
Artists would host their images on their own feeds, aggregators keep your feed in your own power.
/1
People ARE liable for what they publish - the whole point is that Section 230 means internet service operators are not considered publishers unless they are editorializing the content.
The reality is client-server model isn't going away. It exists for a reason: it's efficient.
Things like search, indexing, and aggregation are extremely difficult (and costly) to implement reliably in a purely peer-to-peer model. Not saying it can't be done, it's just not efficient.
@adam If Section 230 is repealed, what happens to PC2.0 when some dipshit starts posting obscene content as show names / episode titles or other content that is included in the index? You'd be liable.
So you'd have to create a decentralized index. Which, while it can be done in theory, is significantly more difficult in practice.
@adam As do I, and my interpretation is that if you host a file at a server and make it accessible to people other than yourself, without Section 230 you are liable for the content.
i.e., if you host a file share and someone uploads a copyrighted movie, you can be named and sued in the lawsuit, as can your ISP.
You SHOULD be liable for what you publish. That's my point.
File shares is the opposite of only using your own server for yourself.
@eriner obviously I interpret this in the context of the entire statute.
@adam Are you planning to limit connections to servers to only yourself?
@adam Right, but everyone (for 28 years) has enjoyed protection of Section 230.
The crux of the argument is that if you remove that liability shield, "do we really need this?" is what everybody between the original publisher and whoever views it will be asking themselves.
Just so we're clear, 230 is about "interactive Computer Services", defined as follows:
e term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Note: multiple users
> We would have a flourishing decentralized web, not the crap big tech has kettled us into.
If you make this argument, then you HAVE to be for legislating ISPs as common carriers (net neutrality), otherwise this argument isn't realistic and you're in fact advocating giving power to some of the worst of the worst corporations in the US.
> Its made censorship easier, propaganda a snap and demonstrably has degraded mental health
If you take away the liability shield from people like me to host servers, who will be left to host them besides large (media) corporations who will be FORCED to heavily censor all user content to avoid the liability themselves? Client-Server model isn't going anywhere due to technical considerations.
> Its not bad to consider a different world from time to time.
I have, but the reality is without the liability shield ISPs won't put up with **anyone** who hosts content that makes psycho terminally-online trannies call and complain all day long.
A hypothetical we cannot prove.
Not a single podcast host has stopped hosting podcasts for this reason. And there are thousands to choose from globally.
RSS based podcasting proves it can work.
@Bead @adam @bot If you're running a hitman registry and kill list, you're liable criminally. Section 230 affords you no protection.
@bot @adam Yes, only civil tort.
It doesn't shield you from ANY criminal liability.
@bot @Bead @adam He asked for an example of how it **couldn't** protect you.
Was my example not accurate? Section 230 provides no protection for what I described precisely because it's criminal.
@bot @Bead @adam absolutely. This is exactly why the NCEMC and IWF's lack of open source publication of their hashes and fingerprints is so egregious.
Even if you wanted to, unless you pay money to the extortionists and/or are forced to enter into legally-binding contractual agreements with them, there's nothing you can do.
Glowies will fedpost and/or bait literal retards so they can fuck your shit up.
All this talk of AI, where's my open source anti-CSAM model?
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.