87
US Senator moves to file Section 230 repeal
(www.livemint.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
87 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
43392 readers
922 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Section 230 doesn't need to be repealed, it only needs to be amended.
It basically says that online platforms can't be held liable for the content their users post.
However that was put in place before black box algorithms were put in charge of peoples feeds, and literally hacking our brains to keep us outraged, afraid, and engaged.
It needs to be amended to hold companies liable for content their algorithms recommend to people. It's one thing to allow people to post whatever they want. That needs to preserved. But if a site "recommends " something that's harmful, they should be held responsible for that recommendation.
What you say sounds good, and this isn't rhetorical, but who gets to decide what constitutes "harmful" then? Isn't that still the same problem that could be weaponized against free speech?
Obviously the way the previous commenter worded it would infringe on the platforms' free speech, it's only workable if we replace "harmful" with "illegal" (e.g. libelous).