Here’s a puzzle: How do you write a law that’s so badly designed that (1) the people it’s meant to help oppose it, (2) the people who hate regulation support it, and (3) everyone …
  • just_another_person@lemmy.worldEnglish
    88·
    5 days ago

    Another waste of our time and money. It’s a bill to try and force companies to remove content they don’t like…or else.

    This will be shot down in court (again), and since the platforms themselves will be responsible for removing content, will not be forced to comply. It’s unconstitutional and unenforceable, so just a big ass waste of everyone’s fucking time. So dumb.

  • mesamunefire@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    29·
    6 days ago

    So how would this work with the fediverse? Like we federate all content…its going to be VERY difficult to do anything if political content creators keep being told to take it down.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        15·
        6 days ago

        Wow. If the fediverse is only operable by meta’s instance inside the USA, I’m really going to miss everyone, because I’m just not, with meta.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          6 days ago

          so we create a walled garden of our own.

          can’t complain if the public can’t view it.

          someone takes screenshots of the problematic content and shares it? well they’re in trouble for posting/sharing problematic content.

        • shani66@ani.socialEnglish
          8·
          6 days ago

          No, it’s worse than that. It’s impossible to meet the standards set in this and other bills of it’s type without having a shortlist of curated, controlled people creating online content. That’s literally the point, keeping people from interesting with information they deem unsavory.

          That said, it is impossible to enforce unless they want to set up the great firewall of america.

      • Ledericas@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        such as reddit, we already know they have been doing it at the behest of the gop since '16