ChronWeasely t1_ja33l3z wrote
Reply to comment by 000Spectator in Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
The implications for social media are huge though. A ruling against Facebook will fundamentally change the role of the social media companies. The internet will become "less free" as companies need to regulate so much information that they'll reject an incredible amount to deflect possible litigation.
MrTastix t1_ja47eeu wrote
It's already "less free" in the sense that massive corporations are incentivised to act in certain ways out of profit.
Look at all the demonetisation fiascos YouTube has had over the years, for instant. It's not free by virtue of it being owned by corporate interests who only agenda is more money.
000Spectator t1_ja5inc2 wrote
Freedom isn’t the issue, it’s portable accountability. This also distracts from the social media corporations selling of personal information for profit.
ChronWeasely t1_ja5wkun wrote
Well that's just a separate issue and not covered by this supreme court case. Section 230 of the CDCA provides a lot of protections to hosts and depending on the wording of the ruling, a lot could change in a lot of places. Youtube receives lifetimes of videos every day. If every single one needed a full screening before hosting, something would have to give. Costs would increase on their end. While I can say "they can just shrug off the cost" we know that's not how it would play out. Not saying I like it, and I think hosts need some responsibility, but these things are all tied together. Not to mention possible effects on ad revenue due to slower publishing of content and the likes.
Legal Eagle did a good video about it last week. I'd recommend checking it out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments