I'll believe it when I see it. This same administration has been secretly emailing Big Tech to censor people like Alex Berenson so I don't buy that they want moderation transparency and reform.
What's interesting about this to me is that there's no mention of pornography. In an earlier era porn would have been an issue of highest priority, but I guess the world has accepted that people can view porn without harm. Even the "Protect our kids" section doesn't mention porn.
I don't know that they've accepted the harmlessness of it as much as raised the white flag on the fact that it's too widespread to be shut down, even if they wanted to.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I see "increase competition," but then see "put stronger safeguards in place" and assume that the regulations will be written in such a way that no upstart competitors can possibly abide by them, concentrating even more power in the hands of the incumbents and reducing competition.
Nobody has spread more misinformation and disinformation than the government and the intelligence agencies. They are the last people on earth who should be trusted to "regulate" the speech of others, much less determine what qualifies as "misinformation and disinformation".
removal of 230 would be disastrous for the internet as we know it, outside of some accelerationist worldview where the destruction of every major internet forum is good in the sense that it forces people into tougher peer-to-peer systems.
17 comments
[ 14.1 ms ] story [ 814 ms ] threadNobody has spread more misinformation and disinformation than the government and the intelligence agencies. They are the last people on earth who should be trusted to "regulate" the speech of others, much less determine what qualifies as "misinformation and disinformation".
afaik the govt is prevented by 1st amendment to abridge free speech no?
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230