Posts by merc@techhub.social
(DIR) Post #AUl9AnpX0zJoVtx9fs by merc@techhub.social
2023-04-17T17:23:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@molly0xfff Wasn't there an FTX arena or something? They'd need a new sponsor. "Tonight we're coming to you from the Web 3 Is Going Just Great Dot Com arena where the home team is on a 5 game losing streak..."
(DIR) Post #AWh5GdYzEvBOEJje3U by merc@techhub.social
2023-06-14T21:01:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bortzmeyer @pinkhairedcyn Right. Looking back we know how important control of a country's TLD is. But, back then it wasn't yet very meaningful.Right now there might be some postdoc at MIT trying to hand out control of certain coordinates in what will eventually become The Actual Metaverse to government reps for various countries. Or, maybe it won't.
(DIR) Post #AhfQueS147ck6GNlPk by merc@techhub.social
2024-04-01T04:23:13Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@dosnostalgic What a soundtrack.Years ago I stumbled across a cut of the matrix without the music. It was such a different movie.For example the lobby shootout scene normally is accompanied by the Propellerheads' Spy Break. That music makes the scene fun. Without that, it's a very tense, very violent shootout.
(DIR) Post #AlD0RvEWtOa6vm05lg by merc@techhub.social
2024-08-22T00:46:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Hey @b0rk , I believe @foone 's gaffe is relevant to your current interests.
(DIR) Post #AwVAKuMTsarsnCq7zU by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-24T04:35:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Couldn't an even narrower change to section 230 preserve the liability shield if someone isn't making any "editorial decisions"?For example, RSS and chronological feeds, no problem, fully shielded. But, as soon as you promote certain content, you become a "publisher" and can be held liable?Section 230 reads "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher..." But, when Facebook and YouTube are trying to boost engagement by selecting the most rage-inducing content and forcing it into your feed, they do seem like publishers.I'm sure the devil's in the details. Like, is a stickied forum post enough to make someone a publisher? But, generally this would draw a distinction between algorithmic platforms (big tech) and chronological platforms (traditional forums).
(DIR) Post #AwVAKwsSWfdUaxoh72 by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T07:01:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic If Meta and friends were to lose the ability to manipulate feeds and emotions without being seen as publishers, losing the explore tab seems like the tiniest possible price to pay.But, yeah, the devil is in the details. Losing the option to block spam would be a problem.If a law could be crafted by Tim Wu, Lina Khan, Elizabeth Warren etc. I think it could improve 230. But, this congress would do the exact wrong thing, especially once big tech got their FAANGs into it.
(DIR) Post #AwVAKyChatQGi2INIu by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T17:02:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic I don't really see the connection to section 230 there. Meta has full section 230 protection, but bent the knee and adjusted its algorithms immediately when Trump was elected. Something only possible *because* it has algorithmic feeds, not a chronological ones.It seems like what's saving small instances right now isn't section 230, it's that they're too small to bother with.
(DIR) Post #AwVAL0LHdxTXLEKFxQ by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T18:41:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Facebook finds it easy to comply with the restrictions in the 230-as-is world. Do you think their behaviour would change if they were seen as a publisher and had to treat user content the way radio stations handle listener call ins?
(DIR) Post #AwVAL0sbe4890Zurtg by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T18:42:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Again, I'm not suggesting scrapping 230, just adjusting it. The original purpose was to treat online sites as a "public library, book store, or newsstand" (Cubby v Compuserve) that couldn't be expected to know the contents of the things they were distributing. But, algorithmic social media sites definitely do know what they're distributing, and choose the most "engaging" things to show to their users. IMO they are definitely more publishers than distributors these days.
(DIR) Post #AwVAL1S3WGUEmWVB9U by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T18:43:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Meanwhile, old-school forums and chronological fediverse sites are still acting as distributors not publishers. They don't examine each post for potential engagement and publish the most engaging ones at the top, so they should still receive the section 230 shield.
(DIR) Post #AwVAL21rN97uZZFlxY by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T18:43:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Small servers are clearly vulnerable to legal threats. But that's today, in a world where section 230 exists as-is. If Weinstein were being accused today he'd go after fediverse sites, no question. But, he wouldn't need 230. He'd use bogus copyright claims, go after payment processors, dox the site operators, etc.
(DIR) Post #AwVAL2p8PwXf2OJ7lQ by merc@techhub.social
2025-07-25T18:44:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pluralistic Is your argument that the status quo is best because we can't imagine how much worse things could get? Or that every medium should have equivalent of section 230 protection, including TV, radio and newspapers? If a newspaper editor hand-selects a "juicy" op-ed in which someone defames someone else, should the newspaper be able to claim 230 protection because they merely hosted the op-ed? Or is that only OK when it's online?