The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

[Harpy Eagle]

Too much smut is being made available to impressionable children.

Then stop looking at it.

 

[Blaster]

Then stop looking at it.

How many dumb comments do you make in one day?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How many dumb comments do you make in one day?

How Many Licks Does It Take To Get To A Tootsie Pop's Center

 

[Blaster]

How Many Licks Does It Take To Get To A Tootsie Pop's Center

 

[Captain Caveman]

Wrong.

This isn't a free speech lssue.

The case concerns private civil suits, not the First Amendment.

You tell your fellow countrymen then because it's what they usually blub.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Success!

 

[marvin martian]

Success!

If your goal was making yourself look like an asshole, sure, you succeeded brilliantly.

 

[justoffal]

I would prefer that this is addressed by Congress not SCOTUS, but am wondering how this will impact websites, particularly nonSocial Media sites (like USMB).

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could upend protections Big Tech has enjoyed for years—and the internet may never be the same

A Supreme Court hearing next week could shine a light on how Congress could clamp down on tech, and the future of free speech online.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Libby von H]

Bye bye First Amendment. The wrong decision by the SC would give the government more control in deciding what's "extremist" or "hateful" speech. Don't like abortion? Then shut up about it, terrorist. You think Joe Biden is an idiot? Better keep that to yourself.

Now pick up that can, citizen.

If only you could think straight....you equate wrong decision with more control which MUST mean you do already know part of the answer: LESS CONTROL. but that is stupid. THere are multiple controls in effect right now so you are saying nothing definite.

So every abortion comment, because it is abortion, fits cleanly into okay or 'hate speech' YOU COMPLETE MORON

 

[Rogue AI]

Section 230 has outlived its usefulness. When the internet was yet a mewling babe, such protections were prudent to promote growth. Technology, access, and use has expanded to a point that these protections make little sense. Making companies accountable is hardly a violation of our rights, particularly given the companies in question are all privately owned.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Section 230 has outlived its usefulness. When the internet was yet a mewling babe, such protections were prudent to promote growth. Technology, access, and use has expanded to a point that these protections make little sense. Making companies accountable is hardly a violation of our rights, particularly given the companies in question are all privately owned.

If you make a company accountable for anything that shows up on their site will be an end to sites such as this. This site would have to pre-approve every post before it could be seen to avoid something slipping by, thus ending this site and everyone like it.

Even X and FB would have to do so, which would pretty much end their usefulness.

 

[Rogue AI]

If you make a company accountable for anything that shows up on their site will be an end to sites such as this. This site would have to pre-approve every post before it could be seen to avoid something slipping by, thus ending this site and everyone like it.

Even X and FB would have to do so, which would pretty much end their usefulness.

It would also get the government out of such sites. Nobody spreads more lies and disinformation than they do. Private companies would not want to be liable for them. With current technology, flagging things wouldn't be difficult, nor does ending section 230 mean instant accountability, merely a reasonable time frame to remove illegal, slanderous, or copyright protected content. These companies are already liable for copyright infringement.