The supporters include the group formerly known as "Morality in Media", plus the right-wing "Concerned Women for America" (founded by the wife of the coauthor of the Left Behind books).... Why are Democrats willing to advertise endorsements like these as though they are good things?
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, has co-sponsored Section 230 "reform" in the past, so he's probably open to changing the status quo (which is bad), but perhaps not willing to go for the blunderbuss approach of all-out repeal (which is better).
I am doubtful that anyone here has adequate information to make a serious prediction about that. Getting through the next ACA crisis may be a higher priority; they could be dealing with a partial or total government shutdown in February, depending on how the chaos of the funding bills sorts out.
This would make platforms, including your friendly local Mastodon instance, liable for having a spam filter. Every forum that allows the downvoting of comments would lose 230 protection, since sorting comments by votes or hiding comments that have been heavily downvoted is prioritization.
It may, for example, be possible to ensure that users who make the requisite choice are only able to access pages where every editor who has contributed to the live content on the page has verified their identity.
What?
It is not obvious that this would be unduly difficult to achieve.
A plain reading of the law's definition of "social media platform" would encompass YouTube, and would therefore forbid teenagers from watching a 90-minute documentary or leaving a browser tab open in the background to play Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
Having followed the overlapping circles of TESCREAL weirdos and Numberwang racists for a while, I learned of Lasker some time ago, and now I welcome everyone to my misery.
The darn thing is that I do believe in the "magic of moviegoing". Back in the Before Times, we'd get a friend crew together and stroll through Boston Common to the multiplex on Tremont Street... an AMC itself, even. Seeing things there like Inception and the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes made for good spectacle and pleasant memories. But over the years, the genuine joy of casual entertainment has been leeched away. My more recent cinema-going makes me sound like a ghastly snob: "Oh, yes, the most ... mainstream film I have gone to see must have been Almodovar's Dolor y Gloria." I ingest plenty of audiovisual junk food, I promise; it's just that popcorn flicks aren't worth the trip anymore.
Does anyone have a link to the bill text? The couple news stories that have come out so far had some puffery about improvements, which sound like they're just echoing the sales talk of the politicians themselves.
Last year, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone introduced a similar bill in the House. Like that one, this new plan is essentially legislative extortion: put a sunset date on Section 230 to magically “force big tech to come to the table” to negotiate “something better.”
Yet another exhibit making the case that the Democrats are completely misreading the moment. This whole stunt is a hold-over from their ignorant "protect the children/stand against Big Tech" grandstanding during the Biden administration. It was a dumbass idea then, for obvious reasons. If you want to hold Big Tech accountable, or if you want to bully them to the negotiating table, how about you propose a law that, and follow me carefully here, actually hurts Big Tech? A strong federal all-ages privacy law would hit 'em right in the pocketbook, for example, without stifling smaller players.
But no, instead of doing the right thing last year, or the year before, or the year before that, they fixated on "solutions" that will hurt people — and now they're bringing that fixation forward into what we can charitably describe as a radically changed environment.
Terminal goddamn Senate brain, I swear.
OK, I will agree with a "regulation will lock in the major players" take in many areas, but here it's like saying California is going to prohibit artisanal, hand-sliced subprime mortgages.
The supporters include the group formerly known as "Morality in Media", plus the right-wing "Concerned Women for America" (founded by the wife of the coauthor of the Left Behind books).... Why are Democrats willing to advertise endorsements like these as though they are good things?
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, has co-sponsored Section 230 "reform" in the past, so he's probably open to changing the status quo (which is bad), but perhaps not willing to go for the blunderbuss approach of all-out repeal (which is better).
I am doubtful that anyone here has adequate information to make a serious prediction about that. Getting through the next ACA crisis may be a higher priority; they could be dealing with a partial or total government shutdown in February, depending on how the chaos of the funding bills sorts out.
Ted Cruz is the committee chair, and in the past he has made confused noises about wanting to reform 230 instead of repealing it, so there might be an opportunity to put some friction in its path.
No, it doesn't actually make sense, as teens in Australia will tell you, and the Helen Lovejoys would just move on to their next cause, like banning VPNs.
The first link points to the same page as the second.
On the Australianet, no one knows you're a golden retriever.
This would make platforms, including your friendly local Mastodon instance, liable for having a spam filter. Every forum that allows the downvoting of comments would lose 230 protection, since sorting comments by votes or hiding comments that have been heavily downvoted is prioritization.
A plain reading of the law's definition of "social media platform" would encompass YouTube, and would therefore forbid teenagers from watching a 90-minute documentary or leaving a browser tab open in the background to play Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
Massachusetts wants to do much the same thing.
Having followed the overlapping circles of TESCREAL weirdos and Numberwang racists for a while, I learned of Lasker some time ago, and now I welcome everyone to my misery.
The darn thing is that I do believe in the "magic of moviegoing". Back in the Before Times, we'd get a friend crew together and stroll through Boston Common to the multiplex on Tremont Street... an AMC itself, even. Seeing things there like Inception and the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes made for good spectacle and pleasant memories. But over the years, the genuine joy of casual entertainment has been leeched away. My more recent cinema-going makes me sound like a ghastly snob: "Oh, yes, the most ... mainstream film I have gone to see must have been Almodovar's Dolor y Gloria." I ingest plenty of audiovisual junk food, I promise; it's just that popcorn flicks aren't worth the trip anymore.
Does anyone have a link to the bill text? The couple news stories that have come out so far had some puffery about improvements, which sound like they're just echoing the sales talk of the politicians themselves.
We'll probably see KOSA reintroduced first.
OK, I will agree with a "regulation will lock in the major players" take in many areas, but here it's like saying California is going to prohibit artisanal, hand-sliced subprime mortgages.
And after all that, the judge dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.
... A-and the governor has signed it.