Post B1RcY27KBfBhhGMA2i by adam@podcastindex.social
(DIR) More posts by adam@podcastindex.social
(DIR) Post #B16q3NHwTS2ux4gUrY by james@bne.social
2025-12-09T11:37:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Australia is banning social media sites for under 16s!"Good, I think. But unfortunately it isn't quite as simple as that.https://james.cridland.net/blog/2025/australia-social-media-ban/#auspol #australia #social #youtube #policy #government
(DIR) Post #B16q3OyWCdhIBPc0rg by samsethi@podcastindex.social
2025-12-10T09:43:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@james unintended consequences. It does feel like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. And why is the emphasis all on the user. How about removing section230 protection and putting the onus on social media platforms to regulate the content.
(DIR) Post #B16q3QC1fu61xawJYe by james@bne.social
2025-12-10T10:20:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@samsethi No such thing as section 230 outside US
(DIR) Post #B16q3RFxikq5G5myKe by samsethi@podcastindex.social
2025-12-10T10:59:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@james yes but if it was removed in USA then maybe they would moderate their platforms and not force countries to apply unilateral blanket age bans. "Treat the cause not the symptom."
(DIR) Post #B16q3SMjb3qmhNxtWi by adam@podcastindex.social
2025-12-10T15:16:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@samsethi @james Very simpleton thinking here. Without section 230 all social media goes away overnight as they would be embroiled in liability lawsuits. There is only one solution and that is the ultimate goal: Government issued DigitalID. Interim steps will be app store level age verification, with an existing government id.
(DIR) Post #B16q3WgNXxwO5TBdhY by james@bne.social
2025-12-09T23:04:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The Murdoch press crowing about the social media ban should be a red warning flag.
(DIR) Post #B16q3fn5gNeoKtOcue by james@bne.social
2025-12-09T23:05:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
As you’ll read in my blog post - this isn’t even an accurate précis of the law, but then, Murdoch papers aren’t entirely renowned for telling the truth
(DIR) Post #B17CIM8tDOcsjV00DA by samsethi@podcastindex.social
2025-12-10T19:25:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adam @james that is my point. I think social media has done more harm to society than good. Zuck has made billions on the misery and anger he has fostered. I don’t really engage in social media now. A few friends on WhatsApp and tech posts here, no threads, x or insta. And somehow I don’t miss it and I survive. So getting rid of their protection is something I would be in favour off.
(DIR) Post #B17SXcfndPeFc2h5k0 by james@bne.social
2025-12-10T22:27:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adam @samsethi Section 230 doesn’t exist in the rest of the world. All social media hasn’t failed to exist in the rest of the world. So I don’t buy the argument. Government IDs are specifically not able to be used for the Australian social media ban, incidentally. That’s written into the law.
(DIR) Post #B1QRcfF969U154J0e8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T02:17:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@james> Section 230 doesn’t exist in the rest of the worldNo, but similar safe harbour laws limiting intermediary do exist in most democracies;https://manilaprinciples.org/principles.html@adam is right that removing them would be the online equivalent of making book shops liable for the contents of book they sell. See;https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/@samsethi
(DIR) Post #B1QRpRU5Z61qAlO7tY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T02:19:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)@james> Government IDs are specifically not able to be used for the Australian social media ban, incidentally. That’s written into the lawThat's fine, until it's revealed to be the only practical way to determine an internet user's age, and the law is amended to allow it.The whole idea of age-gating online services is wrongheaded and dangerous, see;https://b416.nz/
(DIR) Post #B1Ra1WN4Tzpw3z5iKm by samsethi@podcastindex.social
2025-12-20T15:25:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @james I fully understand what I was asking for by the removal of section 230. It would make social media unworkable but social media has become toxic and with more AI slop it becomes even worse with people believing more of the fake content. I just think Musk and Zuckerberg should be held to higher standards with the content on their platforms. If they mention the word N*zi in Germany they immediately block the content. They can do better and should be fined if they don't.
(DIR) Post #B1RcY27KBfBhhGMA2i by adam@podcastindex.social
2025-12-20T15:54:12Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@samsethi @strypey @james Without section 230, Truefans would not be able to operate in the USA if you are a hosting provider. The problem is liability and tort, not "bad" words.
(DIR) Post #B1S6QgCAI7EqIy1vhw by james@bne.social
2025-12-20T21:28:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adam @samsethi @strypey Back to liability - there’s no section 230 (whatever Stripey says) outside the US. Yet companies find it perfectly possible to operate. 1999 set the law in the UK - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/304869.stm - with the ISP being held responsible for a Usenet message it hosted.In Australia, if someone posts a defamatory comment in Podnews’s Facebook group (if I have one), I would be liable: https://griffinlegal.com.au/owners-of-social-media-pages-responsible-for-all-comments/It’s perfectly possible to operate without a Section 230 lawlessness clause. Just ask the other 179 countries in the world.
(DIR) Post #B1S8pq4otAMY6FieCe by james@bne.social
2025-12-20T21:55:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey The Manila Principles are a wish (from EFF), not the current legal position.The real world equivalent - as @adam should know - is that the publisher of a book is liable for the content of the book they publish (rather than the author). And, in most cases, if a book contains a defamatory comment, then, yes, the bookshop could be held liable for selling it (and have been, especially in the UK). (A man living in Texas wishes to talk about books to underline his idea of freedom of expression. ROFL.)Here’s Australian law. You’ll note that there isn’t a Section 230-style “you’re not the publisher” lawlessness clause; there is, though, a defence of being a subordinate distributor. There’s similar (“innocent dissemination”) in UK law. Section 230, however, removes all liability - even when an online service provider is told that a comment is illegal.
(DIR) Post #B1SGDNTnYyWC2KZdxo by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T23:18:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)@james > The Manila Principles are a wish (from EFF), not the current legal positionThe point is that there are general principles at play here, and important ones. 230 is far from unique in encoding at least some of them into law.> Section 230, however, removes all liability - even when an online service provider is told that a comment is illegalSee the bit headlined;If you said “Section 230 gives websites blanket immunity!”https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/@adam
(DIR) Post #B1SGcWAYOOSGE6YmuW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T23:23:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)@james> if a book contains a defamatory comment, then, yes, the bookshop could be held liable for selling itOnly after it's been established that they knew it was and continued to sell it regardless.> and have been, especially in the UKWe all know what an great job the UK does at respecting basic rights;“From your right to protest to your ability to hold institutions to account, fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/12/human-rights-watch-issues-damning-verdict-uk
(DIR) Post #B1SH3Ko2kRZenronCq by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-20T23:28:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/3)@james > Here’s Australian law. You’ll note that there isn’t a Section 230-style 'you’re not the publisher' lawlessness clauseAnother common misconception about 230, explained under the bit that starts;If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher”https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/I can see why @mmasnick wrote this up. People are *really* misinformed about what 230 says and how it works.
(DIR) Post #B1SqQVTijRTIxV65Mu by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-21T06:04:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@samsethi> I fully understand what I was asking for by the removal of section 230I don't think you do.> It would make social media unworkableIt would make the fediverse unworkable. It would make web forums unworkable. It would make search engines unworkable. It would make any online service that involves hosting anything you didn't create yourself unworkable.@james
(DIR) Post #B1SrFvZHUUAodwDXdo by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-21T06:13:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@james> Back to liability - there’s no section 230 (whatever Stripey says) outside the USDid that strawman really deserve to die? I didn't say there was a 230 outside the US. I said there are equivalents in most jurisdictions; https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/how-other-countries-have-dealt-intermediary-liability/> Yet companies find it perfectly possible to operateOf course. Businesses will do whatever they have to do to operate in a profitable jurisdiction. Is that a good thing? Not always;https://tsd.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye.html@adam @samsethi
(DIR) Post #B1Srq2SHMVwmQbA44u by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-12-21T06:20:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)@james> In Australia, if someone posts a defamatory comment in Podnews’s Facebook group (if I have one), I would be liableYou would be liable, not Meta. IANAL but I'm guessing you'd only be liable only if it could be shown that;1) you were informed of the defamatory nature of the comment2) You were given a reasonable time limit within which to moderate it3) You refused to do so, or dragged your heelsIf that's not how it works, then Australian disrespects basic due process.
(DIR) Post #B1Stm2HYGO5GdpMYHw by james@bne.social
2025-12-21T06:41:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @adam @samsethi I’m saying - just like you should be - that the laws are *different* outside the US. There isn’t a direct equivalent of Section 230 outside the US. That’s the key here. Your ITIF document explicitly says “these laws differ from Section 230 in a few key ways”.The point is that Section 230 is **broader than any of the equivalents in other countries**; and that most other countries offer narrower protection to the service provider (but still significant protection).You say that the lack of Section 230 makes any form of online hosting unworkable. This is provably false - because the rest of the world doesn’t have Section 230 or the wider protection that clause gives. And we're all still using the internet.(To link to China here is “whataboutism” that I’ll not give you the satisfaction of responding to.)
(DIR) Post #B1TMtCcv6859QG7wzA by adam@podcastindex.social
2025-12-21T12:08:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@james @strypey @samsethi Where are all the successful EU and Australian social media companies?Why did this only flourish in the USA and not elsewhere?Ignoring your ad hominem comments
(DIR) Post #B1TN54rZmx7koqe30q by samsethi@podcastindex.social
2025-12-21T12:10:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@adam @james @strypey that was because UK/EU VC's didn't fund the companies. Thiel's model was to overfund the company until it had total market share and then milk the profits. UK/EU funding was super cautious. We are now seeing more unicorns but in finance - Revolut, Monza etc.
(DIR) Post #B1TZ8lL9W0hqsV0DwG by adam@podcastindex.social
2025-12-21T14:25:27Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
EU UK VC's don't overfund for market share? Because they can't follow a successful model, or are there other constraints?Surely they aren't just stupid?