101010.pl is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
101010.pl czyli najstarszy polski serwer Mastodon. Posiadamy wpisy do 2048 znaków.

Server stats:

488
active users

#section230

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

In a concerning development, the New York State Supreme Court has ruled Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not protect Meta and Bytedance.

Paul A. Goetz, a Democrat who has served on the New York Supreme Court for New York County since 2011, issued the ruling in Nazario v. Meta. The defendants in that case are Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads), ByteDance (which owns TikTok), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the New York Transit Authority. In New York, the trial-level courts are referred to as the Supreme Court, and New York's highest appellate court is the New York Court of Appeals.

Nazario v. Meta concerns the 2023 death of then-15 year old Zackery Nazario. The suit is brought by his mother, Norma Nazario. The suit alleges content on Instagram and TikTok encouraged Nazario and his girlfriend to climb on top of a subway, resulting in his death. The plaintiff alleges Meta and Bytedance are responsible for this. The plaintiff is represented by the Social Media Victims Law Center and Belluck & Fox, LLP.

It is likely the defendants will appeal.

Decloudflared: web.archive.org/web/https://ar

Opinion: cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content

Ars Technica · Meta, TikTok can’t toss wrongful death suit from mom of “subway surfing” teenBy Ashley Belanger

Hmm, not a lawyer, but if Section 230 goes, someone not in the US is going to have to host my users.

eff.org/issues/cda230

Electronic Frontier FoundationSection 23047 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive—is not an accident. Congress recognized that for user speech to thrive on the Internet, it had to protect the services that power users’ speech.  That’s why the U.S. Congress passed a law, Section 230 (originally part of the Communications Decency Act), that protects Americans’ freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries we all rely on. It states:  "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others. The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say.  Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it’s the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech.  Section 230’s protections are not absolute. It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.  Section 230 Protects Us All  For more than 25 years, Section 230 has protected us all: small blogs and websites, big platforms, and individual users.  The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.  Congress knew that the sheer volume of the growing Internet would make it impossible for services to review every users’ speech. When Section 230 was passed in 1996, about 40 million people used the Internet worldwide. By 2019, more than 4 billion people were online, with 3.5 billion of them using social media platforms. In 1996, there were fewer than 300,000 websites; by 2017, there were more than 1.7 billion.  Without Section 230’s protections, many online intermediaries would intensively filter and censor user speech, while others may simply not host user content at all. This legal and policy framework allows countless niche websites, as well as big platforms like Amazon and Yelp to host user reviews. It allows users to share photos and videos on big platforms like Facebook and on the smallest blogs. It allows users to share speech and opinions everywhere, from vast conversational forums like Twitter and Discord, to the comment sections of the smallest newspapers and blogs.  Content Moderation For All Tastes  Congress wanted to encourage internet users and services to create and find communities. Section 230’s text explains how Congress wanted to protect the internet’s unique ability to provide “true diversity of political discourse” and “opportunities for cultural development, and… intellectual activity.”  Diverse communities have flourished online, providing us with “political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.” Users, meanwhile, have new ways to control the content they see.  Section 230 allows for web operators, large and small, to moderate user speech and content as they see fit. This reinforces the First Amendment’s protections for publishers to decide what content they will distribute. Different approaches to moderating users’ speech allows users to find the places online that they like, and avoid places they don’t.  Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users.  If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won’t even get started, because they’ll face overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech.  Learn More About Section 230 Most Important Section 230 Legal Cases Section 230 is Good, Actually How Congress Censored the Internet With SESTA/FOSTA Here's an infographic we made in 2012 about the importance of Section 230. 

AFAICT #Section230 defaults the internet to small, independent websites letting people post dumb shit. And that's great cause sometimes that stuff isn't actually dumb, it was just unlikely to be thought of or said, especially by the wealthy/powerful. It was low-key genius.

Without it, everybody would need to be a lot more careful. Kinda like what we see with overly cautious moderation here on this social network of small, independent websites. IMHO

Replied to petersuber

Re #section230 : : "The dumbest part of this is that while these Senators will likely claim they are doing this to punish 'big tech,' this would actually strengthen Meta and Google’s dominance. While smaller sites shut down rather than risk bankruptcy from legal fees, Meta or Google can easily absorb those same costs. It’s as if these Senators looked at the internet’s consolidation problem and decided the solution was… more consolidation."

From @mmasnick: "Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand #Trump A #Censorship Machine"
techdirt.com/2025/03/21/democr

"The fundamental problem here is that these Senators don’t understand what #Section230 actually does — or how its repeal would make their stated goals harder to achieve… Here’s what repealing Section 230 would actually do: remove the law that explicitly protects websites when they resist government pressure to censor speech. Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don’t like — whether that’s criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with."

Techdirt · Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship MachineAt the exact moment when Donald Trump and his MAGA allies are actively dismantling democratic institutions and working to silence critics, a group of Democratic Senators have decided to collaborate…
Continued thread

Sen #DickDurbin, a #Democrat, & Sen #LindseyGraham, a #Republican, plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of Jan 1, 2027, for #Section230, acc/to a congressional aide familiar…. The senators have wide support from their respective parties: #Republicans #JoshHawley & #MarshaBlackburn & #Democrats #SheldonWhitehouse & #AmyKlobuchar have agreed to co-sponsor the bill. 2 more Dems, #RichardBlumenthal & #PeterWelch, have discussed cosponsoring.

Exclusive: #Section230 May Finally Get Changed as Lawmakers Prep New Bill

By Paris Martineau

As early as next week, Senators plan to introduce the first bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230, the landmark #internet #law

Martineau spoke w/congressional aides to get the details of the ambitious effort, which internet experts described as akin to #extortion

#Congress #Senate
theinformation.com/articles/ex

The Information · Section 230 May Finally Get Changed as Lawmakers Prep New BillBy Paris Martineau

"In their zeal to curb #BigTech, #regulators are crafting legislative reforms that make distinctions between Internet services based on #size. A crucial Internet law, #Section230, is among the targets for such reforms. This essay discusses the nuanced considerations that regulators should address when drafting #sizebased distinctions for #InternetServices. It also raises concerns that such distinctions are not good policy in the context of Section 230."

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf

papers.ssrn.comRegulating Internet Services by SizeIn their zeal to curb Big Tech, regulators are crafting legislative reforms that make distinctions between Internet services based on size. A crucial Internet l