@onrust https://theintercept.com/2024/02/08/facebook-instagram-censor-zionist-israel/ You probably won't like this one. Facebook is considering censoring the term "zionist".
@olives@qoto.org @onrust@infosec.exchange this is a pretty good example of what I meant re: moderation versus editorializing.
@Melpomene @onrust While no one likes Facebook over-reaching, I think that messing around with 230 would probably lead to more blunt decisions, not fewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
@olives@qoto.org @onrust@infosec.exchange Probably. The real question for me isn't whether a good law could be crafted (it could be) but whether the kind of people we elect could/woukd do so.
@Melpomene @onrust I don't think anything good could come from them messing around there, to be honest.
Realistically, I think the most promising thing they could do is getting some sort of privacy law passed (maybe including some standard of data minimization).
If they would stop messing around with this obviously unconstitutional and harmful stuff like KOSA, they could probably do it. They were even looking into it in 2022.
@olives@qoto.org @onrust@infosec.exchange My concern is honestly pretty narrow. Unless we're talking actual defamation, I don't care to hold sites liable, and as I see no way that we could do so without the govts of the world using the change to suppress speech generally... I'm opposed to changing 230.
@olives uuhhh that's awful, shows you where their affinities lie...
Luckily on here we're to some extent able to escape meta, but there's many, many people out there who mainly coordinate and organise via FB or instagram :(