Unable to load image

White House unveils principles for Big Tech reform :marseybiden2::marseyobey:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/08/readout-of-white-house-listening-session-on-tech-platform-accountability

Orange site: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771071

Although tech platforms can help keep us connected, create a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and open up new opportunities for bringing products and services to market, they can also divide us and wreak serious real-world harms. The rise of tech platforms has introduced new and difficult challenges, from the tragic acts of violence linked to toxic online cultures, to deteriorating mental health and wellbeing, to basic rights of Americans and communities worldwide suffering from the rise of tech platforms big and small.

Today, the White House convened a listening session with experts and practitioners on the harms that tech platforms cause and the need for greater accountability. In the meeting, experts and practitioners identified concerns in six key areas: competition; privacy; youth mental health; misinformation and disinformation; illegal and abusive conduct, including sexual exploitation; and algorithmic discrimination and lack of transparency.

One participant explained the effects of anti-competitive conduct by large platforms on small and mid-size businesses and entrepreneurs, including restrictions that large platforms place on how their products operate and potential innovation. Another participant highlighted that large platforms can use their market power to engage in rent-seeking, which can influence consumer prices.

Several participants raised concerns about the rampant collection of vast troves of personal data by tech platforms. Some experts tied this to problems of misinformation and disinformation on platforms, explaining that social media platforms maximize "user engagement" for profit by using personal data to display content tailored to keep users' attention---content that is often sensational, extreme, and polarizing. Other participants sounded the alarm about risks for reproductive rights and individual safety associated with companies collecting sensitive personal information, from where their users are physically located to their medical histories and choices. Another participant explained why mere self-help technological protections for privacy are insufficient. And participants highlighted the risks to public safety that can stem from information recommended by platforms that promotes radicalization, mobilization, and incitement to violence.

Multiple experts explained that technology now plays a central role in access to critical opportunities like job openings, home sales, and credit offers, but that too often companies' algorithms display these opportunities unequally or discriminatorily target some communities with predatory products. The experts also explained that that lack of transparency means that the algorithms cannot be scrutinized by anyone outside the platforms themselves, creating a barrier to meaningful accountability.

One expert explained the risks of social media use for the health and wellbeing of young people, explaining that while for some, technology provides benefits of social connection, there are also significant adverse clinical effects of prolonged social media use on many children and teens' mental health, as well as concerns about the amount of data collected from apps used by children, and the need for better guardrails to protect children's privacy and prevent addictive use and exposure to detrimental content. Experts also highlighted the magnitude of illegal and abusive conduct hosted or disseminated by platforms, but for which they are currently shielded from being held liable and lack adequate incentive to reasonably address, such as child sexual exploitation, cyberstalking, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images of adults.

The White House officials closed the meeting by thanking the experts and practitioners for sharing their concerns. They explained that the Administration will continue to work to address the harms caused by a lack of sufficient accountability for technology platforms. They further stated that they will continue working with Congress and stakeholders to make bipartisan progress on these issues, and that President Biden has long called for fundamental legislative reforms to address these issues.

Attendees at today's meeting included:

  • Bruce Reed, Assistant to the President & Deputy Chief of Staff

  • Susan Rice, Assistant to the President & Domestic Policy Advisor

  • Brian Deese, Assistant to the President & National Economic Council Director

  • Louisa Terrell, Assistant to the President & Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs

  • Jennifer Klein, Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of the Gender Policy Council

  • Alondra Nelson, Deputy Assistant to the President & Head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

  • Bharat Ramamurti, Deputy Assistant to the President & Deputy National Economic Council Director

  • Anne Neuberger, Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology

  • Tarun Chhabra, Special Assistant to the President & Senior Director for Technology and National Security

  • Dr. Nusheen Ameenuddin, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media

  • Danielle Citron, Vice President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

  • Alexandra Reeve Givens, President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology

  • Damon Hewitt, President and Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

  • Mitchell Baker, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation and Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation

  • Karl Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia

  • Patrick Spence, Chief Executive Officer, Sonos

Principles for Enhancing Competition and Tech Platform Accountability

With the event, the Biden-Harris Administration announced the following core principles for reform:

  1. Promote competition in the technology sector. The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, and the U.S. has led the world in the development of the Internet economy. Today, however, a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to engage in rent-seeking, and to gather intimate personal information that they can use for their own advantage. We need clear rules of the road to ensure small and mid-size businesses and entrepreneurs can compete on a level playing field, which will promote innovation for American consumers and ensure continued U.S. leadership in global technology. We are encouraged to see bipartisan interest in Congress in passing legislation to address the power of tech platforms through antitrust legislation.

  2. Provide robust federal protections for Americans' privacy. There should be clear limits on the ability to collect, use, transfer, and maintain our personal data, including limits on targeted advertising. These limits should put the burden on platforms to minimize how much information they collect, rather than burdening Americans with reading fine print. We especially need strong protections for particularly sensitive data such as geolocation and health information, including information related to reproductive health. We are encouraged to see bipartisan interest in Congress in passing legislation to protect privacy.

  3. Protect our kids by putting in place even stronger privacy and online protections for them, including prioritizing safety by design standards and practices for online platforms, products, and services. Children, adolescents, and teens are especially vulnerable to harm. Platforms and other interactive digital service providers should be required to prioritize the safety and wellbeing of young people above profit and revenue in their product design, including by restricting excessive data collection and targeted advertising to young people.

  4. Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms. Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

  5. Increase transparency about platform's algorithms and content moderation decisions.  Despite their central role in American life, tech platforms are notoriously opaque. Their decisions about what content to display to a given user and when and how to remove content from their sites affect Americans' lives and American society in profound ways. However, platforms are failing to provide sufficient transparency to allow the public and researchers to understand how and why such decisions are made, their potential effects on users, and the very real dangers these decisions may pose.

  6. Stop discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. We need strong protections to ensure algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups, such as by failing to share key opportunities equally, by discriminatorily exposing vulnerable communities to risky products, or through persistent surveillance.

108
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

any child under the age of 18 should only be allowed to use CoolMathGames.com, under adult supervision ofc.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I kind of it unironically agree with this. Coolmathgames and Wikipedia. No gay piss orgies until you're 18; only then do you get your prolapseparty.com certificates.

No idea how to enforce this, though, without also breaking society in a 1984 way.


Don't forget to turn off signatures in settings!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lol you can find a lot of adult content on wikipedia

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, like s*x positions and bukkake. But reading about champagne-glass titties in Song of Solomon and where the clitoris is on Wikipedia isn't exactly akin to getting groomed into a furry or :marseytrain:.


Don't forget to turn off signatures in settings!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

1-5 sound good

6 sounds like red meat tossed to yt pipo which is why it’ll be the only one that’ll get done

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

4 sounds horrible

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

whatever the govt tries to do here, it's going to frick it up.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Aren't most of the things they mention (aside from discrimination) stuff dramatards tend to ree about?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms. Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

:gigachadglow:

I like points 1 and 2.

3, nobody is forcing you or your children to use faceberg, snapfap or instragram. Why should we make legislation to force tech companies to do things the parents are responsible for. (Guide and protect their kids online)

5 and 6 should be up to the digression of the online service. As annoying the problems they outlined are, there isn't any good reason the government should be dictating HOW you chose to run your service. If the users don't like it, they can move. (how would they enforce this?)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

3, nobody is forcing you or your children to use faceberg, snapfap or instragram. Why should we make legislation to force tech companies to do things the parents are responsible for. (Guide and protect their kids online)

By that same logic it shouldn't be illegal for children to view porn etc?

While it would be nice if parents parented their children more we must accept that relying on them to is a fools errand.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The extremes have already been accounted for. Porn is already illegal for minors (same as alcohol, nicotine, etc) because there is enough evidence to reasonably assert it is harmful to their suggestive and developing minds.

The dangers of social media and cyberspace aren't always so obvious. And unlike porn and drugs, the internet has plethora of constructive and productive uses, so you can't just blanket ban minors. Online platforms (and the internet in general) are too big and too diverse (for lack of better word) for it to be possible to "protect the children" without implementing such restrictive policies that those platforms would become more cumbersome and invasive than most users would be comfortable with. (And despite being illegal, minors continue to get their hands on porn, alcohol and drugs anyway. Kinda seems like legislation doesn't stop people from doing whatever they want. :marseythinkorino:)

Depending on parents to fulfill their responsibilities as parents is the most reasonable solution. The alternative is relying the government to parent our children for us (what could they do that a parent can't?). There is no perfect solution to this problem, therefore we should chose the most reasonable solution.

It is not reasonable to enact policies that affects everyone because a minority of parents are shitty, and it is naive to expect the government to protect our children for us.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just ban children

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>faceberg

Aevann ran a chud award train on me last time I said that.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Aevann likes me more than you :marseysmug2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

![](/images/16628390251699412.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jealous?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because you're a boring rightoid agendaposter

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You wouldn't know fun if it gave you monkeypox.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

@Aevann BIPOC negro

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

1 & 2 seem like meaningless gestures. If you increase costs on those companies, then you'll get less quality, so maybe it's good if social media becomes so miserable that less will use it. Or they may shift to a subscription model that locks features away from the free riders.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:mars#eyfugg:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyrage:

Snapshots:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771071:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Its over for you, snaps.:marppybiden:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unironically we need a data :marseychartgaussian: tax of $.02/mb for first :marseywinner: 30 days, $.10/mb after 30 days, and $.20/mb after 2 years.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Internet and mobile phones becoming cheap and widely accessible is responsible for the current state of things.

As usual, the poors ruin everything their get their mitts on.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The gov doesn't own, operate or maintain internet infrastructure, what would the justification for that tax look like?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Like this paypig.

:marseytrollgun:

Pay or get shot LMAO.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Pretty convincing ngl

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All US citizens are gov't property, and the CIA is sad that big tech :marseycodecellove: stole their schtick :marseycry:.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The government literally made the internet but ok sweaty

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Invention and implementation aren't the same thing, hon :marseynails:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When has that stopped them before?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow, the attendees are a collection of turboghouls.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am going to become the Joker.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Disagree with the 230 shit but data gathering, child protection, and Amazon needs split up. Also all sites should have an 'opt in to the algorithm' so you don't create mindless attention scrolls.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah I liked most of what I read but I think the real concern is how they go about implementing it, because I doubt it will be as even handed and reasonable as this overview sounds.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yep unless one of the people in the group is EFF I don't trust it. Bunch of "I left a FAANG a year ago to work for the govt" mfers

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Stop discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. We need strong protections to ensure algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups, such as by failing to share key opportunities equally, by discriminatorily exposing vulnerable communities to risky products, or through persistent surveillance.

Do they actually have examples of this happening?

The problematic algorithms I'm familiar with are the ones that try to keep users as angry as possible so they'll "engage" more with content.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Insurances and job and other kinds of digital adversiment can be targeted on certain races or age groups, so the people you dont want , but cannot legally discriminate against, wont even see it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fcae ID algos comparing BIPOC to gorillas and chimps need to be sent to sensitivity training to dechud it

:chudsey:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Stop discriminatory algorithmic decision-making.

which in practice means "implement explicit discrimination if non-discrimination doesn't yield equality of outcome"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms. Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

Wasnt this a rightoid talking point?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Its a uniparty talking point that was shoved onto a rightoid president because it was relevantly opportune time and now again to the puppet.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People slowly finding out brandon is a rightoid and always has been

:#marseydicklet:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Senator from MBNA is a rightoid? Say it aint so!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The left wants to sue platforms for not taking down inconvenient posts. In their preferred world, Keffals would be able to sue the NZ Ag. Soc. for keeping records of the catboy ranch.

The right wants to sue platforms for not being a neutral public square. In their preferred world, Trump would be able to sue Twitter for having had enough of his nonsense.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Pretty much. The left sees 230 as a problem because it makes it legal to host wrongthink instead of forcing everyone into the expected circlejerk. The right hates 230 because in practice sites like Reddit are already partisan and so remove all rightoid content to force a circlejerk.

So the left hates 230's purpose, the right hates 230 in practice.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but it's still going to happen because all that rich people care about is keeping the poors infighting. just don't be poor.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Rightoids can't decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing because it means alex jones can sue twitter but it also means schizos can sue their sites.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thas def a bad thing for rightoids

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Its a bad thing for the site owners like null who whine about it all the time. It's a good thing for posters because presumably the bigger sites are going to be more selective and careful about moderation

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I dunno if more moderation is a good thing for anybody. It's just gonna make existing moderation more insufferable.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Its not more moderation though necessarily because theyre actually held accountable for the moderation decisions in either direction.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Theoretically I just :marseyblops2chadcel2: don't see this sort of stuff ever turning favorably to users. Rightoids could point :marseydicklet: at sites and go "You cant ban me you are a platform not a publisher!!" and all the platforms would just :marseyblops2chadcel: say im a publisher and moderate harder to stop stochastic terrorism

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So will we see an end to the Powerjanny-12 (PJ-12), yes or no?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

in six key areas: competition; privacy; youth mental health; misinformation and disinformation; illegal and abusive conduct, including sexual exploitation; and algorithmic discrimination and lack of transparency

Dropping the :n: word you’ll get arrested lamo

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Protect our kids by putting in place even stronger privacy and online protections for them, including prioritizing safety by design standards and practices for online platforms, products, and services.

![](https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6MbudZJtl8nNebaE/giphy.webp)

The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

Drumpf vindicated.

However, platforms are failing to provide sufficient transparency to allow the public and researchers to understand how and why such decisions are made, their potential effects on users, and the very real dangers these decisions may pose.

They're private companies, sweaty. People can stop using them if they're so concerned about their effects.

We need strong protections to ensure algorithms do not discriminate against protected groups, such as by failing to share key opportunities equally, by discriminatorily exposing vulnerable communities to risky products, or through persistent surveillance.

:#marseyeyeroll2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does that mean the government will stop spying on us?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

![](https://media.giphy.com/media/3ov9jLsBqPh6rjuHuM/giphy.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17142302820498302.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is what Trump and rightiods wanted. Either way this is going to be a shit show.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow look at that. Not a single point about privacy. Neat.

I hate the dems so much it's unreal. Hate the repubs too.

Edit: I'm an actual :marseybrainlet: who somehow skipped the first point. fwiw I don't consider the kids thing privacy related, more like "only brainwash kids with approved messages".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow look at that. Not a single point about privacy. Neat.

  1. Provide robust federal protections for Americans' privacy. There should be clear limits on the ability to collect, use, transfer, and maintain our personal data, including limits on targeted advertising. These limits should put the burden on platforms to minimize how much information they collect, rather than burdening Americans with reading fine print. We especially need strong protections for particularly sensitive data such as geolocation and health information, including information related to reproductive health. We are encouraged to see bipartisan interest in Congress in passing legislation to protect privacy.
  1. Protect our kids by putting in place even stronger privacy and online protections for them, including prioritizing safety by design standards and practices for online platforms, products, and services. Children, adolescents, and teens are especially vulnerable to harm. Platforms and other interactive digital service providers should be required to prioritize the safety and wellbeing of young people above profit and revenue in their product design, including by restricting excessive data collection and targeted advertising to young people.

At least two points about privacy are mentioned.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We are sending our finest.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyretard2::!#marseysmoothbrain:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

English, motherlover, can you read it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apparently not. Stop being so ableist.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Based radical centrism. Foids cant kill their babies anymore, chuds cant bully vulnerable minorities with cyberslurs. All is balanced.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Remove special legal protections for large tech platforms. Tech platforms currently have special legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that broadly shield them from liability even when they host or disseminate illegal, violent conduct or materials. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230.

:marseydesp#air:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What will happen to rdrama when they make clocking (misgendering) illegal?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That would invalidate 1A and the American digital infrastructure would have long since gone up in flames from the conflict this immediately led to.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you still think burgers would rise up for something? I've been so disillusioned, it's like some people are cheering this shit on

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not usually, no, but repealing 1A would encompass freedom of religion as well. I don’t think burgers are remotely genuinely religious, but I do think that enough Southerner schismatics would kick it off over that.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's a good point, a lot of wars have started over religious drama. I can see that being what finally gets burgercels off the couch, bringing the militia LARP to irl shit

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Please :( I just want an excuse to fight and die in a holy war and we don’t seem to have any imminent desire to retake Constantinople

I need this


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you will never get to die in a righteous holy crusade sanctioned by God himself. Why even live…

:marseydoomer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m holding out for a chance to take a shot at retconning Revelation and taking out the Antichrist myself :marseycrusader:


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

>we don’t seem to have any imminent desire to retake Constantinople

Be the change you want to see, start the Knights Hospitaller Part 2 but instead of tending to the injured, work in psych wards and explain to schizos that we must drive the saracens out of the holy city posthaste

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The thing about child protection seems weird as well, I don't see how they'll achieve it without some sort of identify verification. Parent enabled child protection modes have been avaliable for a while so I doubt that's what they're talking about

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

if you put your youtube into 'kids' mode nothing should be able to get into it that isn't vetted for kids. remember the weird af superhero & elsa shit youtubers were spamming into the kids section for monetized views? kids content should also not be monetizable by views.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

kids content should also not be monetizable by views

I never gave this point any thought, why the frick isn't it like that?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cause money

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>kids content should also not be monetizable by views.

That's literally how it's always worked. That's 100% why every thing from the Lone Ranger radio show to Howdy Doody to every Saturday morning cartoon exists at all. All that's just a means to get kids to see ads.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and there are advertising laws for ads directed at kids. my bigger complaint though is shit content thats made explicitly to draw their attention.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

there are advertising laws for ads directed at kids.

Maybe for Bongs and shitty Bong adjacent places, but not anywhere that counts. Most places have fake butt industry-based voluntary regulatory bodies, like the MPAA setting movie ratings for example. The Children's TV Act, the closest thing in the US, basically stopped shit like GI Joe from having ads for GI Joe figures and non disclosed in-show ads. The content of ads wasn't affected.

And literally all kids programming of any medium is to draw their attention, that's the fricking point. So they can sell ads based on having someone's attention.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lmao this is what rightoids were trying to get DDR to do because muh deplatforming

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Watch the media be soft peepeeed about criticizing this because it's coming from blue team.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This wont even be mentioned by the media because its only something termally online autismos care about

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseysickos2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's the selective enforcement that really pisses me off.

Pardon me, I'll be right back.

![](/images/16626848846410103.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

NEDPOSTING

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

because of this post carp has been sentenced to 20 years of gay buttrape in prison

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Pic unrelated

...right?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In minecraft :marseyminer: right? in minecraft :marseyminer: right? :marseysweating:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jesse, what the frick mine are you crafting

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Where ya goin neighborino


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just :marseyblops2chadcel2: going :marseysal2: to meet :marseymouse: with some students at Kent State :marseycoonass: god bless em

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now don’t you go widdly-worrying about it

:#marseynotes2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Null has explicitly stated that Section 230 will be the thing that will finally bring the Farms down, Trump should have been the lolcow who successfully shut down the farms tho.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16841365553783963.webp

:marseyglow: :marseylaugh:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All this means in these words is that large platforms like reddit and twitter will actually have to address their groomer and violent threat problem, it says nothing about wrong think. Platforms will still probably interpret it as meaning they have to remove anything vaguely problematic though, which is a way this could go wrong, but social media companies have never been good. Most users of this site probably only dislike this because Biden authorized it rather than Trump, and because of the Kiwifarms situation.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wouldn't this just result in a further push for countries to build their own internet?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That has little to do with other countries.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How so, if they pass laws that influence the entire internet structure and the internet is mostly American then wouldn't this law influence the entire world?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is an American law that would affect webhosts within American jurisdiction. It might motivate companies to relocate their servers to other countries, but it wouldn't require other countries to "build their own internet".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

thanks for clarifying,

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That’s it, the internet as we know it is over.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

cause we keep letting the government regulate speech yo

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16841281833052316.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just want to remind the Government’s of Russia and China that I have always been an admirer of Putin and President Xi. May rDrama’s tutelage under them be long and prosperous.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseysaluteussr::marseyliondance:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

surely China and Russia will not try to exert influence on big sites hosted there :#marseyclueless:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's exactly what I said tho, there will be no big sites hosted there, only ones small enough to fly under the radar. It's perfect. Small forums survive, generational-mind-destroying social media doesn't

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:(

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It already was over. Everything fun has been replaced with advertising and social media.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the internet follows american laws :marseyretard3:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they specify "large tech platforms" but don't go into detail about how they'd make sure this doesn't frick over smaller websites. Really makes you :marseywrongthonk:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It was never about large tech platforms aside from legally compelling them to take down wrongthink even harder. It’s entirely to keep opposing platforms from rising.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1707881499271494.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17101210991135056.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But they mentioned preventing sexual exploitation of minors. That'll be a good thing that will happen!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it won't. people in power are pedos, and anyone who gets into power automatically becomes a p-do.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.


Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.