Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Joke-Traditional t1_iu1kgua wrote

So many parents and guardians depend on these phones and social media to successfully raise and protect their kids. Makes sense their own flesh n blood aren't worried about what the kid is doing online but a freaking app is supposed to be. Smh

11

[deleted] t1_iu1rma7 wrote

Articles like this seem to be written as a setup for repealing 230, which would fundamentally break the internet.

Don't listen to this drivel.

10

el_f3n1x187 t1_iu2fwxw wrote

you bet they are trying to pull a devils advocate with that sort of bullshit!

2

oath2order t1_iu2ndyn wrote

That is absolutely the goal here.

Politicians on both sides have been clamoring to control the Internet through various methods. COICA, PROTECT IP Act, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and now Section 230 "reform" or repeal depending on who you talk to.

2

retnemmoc t1_iu31dj9 wrote

Section 230 is very important but also kinda terrible. It gives platforms immunity from a lot of lawsuits but it doesn't really require them to function as platforms at all, blurring the lines between platform and publisher.

I do think 230 needs reform but I do agree with what you are saying that the quest to reform 230 is a false face to control it.

1

DefendSection230 t1_iu47y4m wrote

Wow... Who lied to you?

Websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction.

Additionally the term "Platform" has no legal definition or significance.

All websites are Publishers.

4

Seva55 t1_iu42kxk wrote

Regardless, there needs to be protection for children against videos that promote dangerous challenges.

This shit is clearly getting out of hand. If I cant watch a anti vax video or a video about Ye speaking his mind, theres no fucking reason why tik tok should be allowed to drag our society to the morgue

1