Brazil's Supreme Court clears way to hold social media liable for user content (apnews.com)

I'd rather just a full blanket ban on social media, but I guess it's something.

Social media is basically what cigarettes were in the 50s: everyone uses it, and seemingly no one is aware of how it is almost entirely bad.

I will be interested in how this plays out. I believe it's Section 230 [0] that allows US platforms to not be held liable. I'd be keen to understand whether this effectively bans social media (and comment sections?) from Brazil, or whether people need to click an I-promise-I'm-not-Brazilian button to access them.

[0] Not a lawyer so wikipedia is the best I have - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

US Social Media should just cancel service to that territory.

“Brazilian Supreme Court suddenly deems 11-year-old law unconstitutional after their own corruption is exposed on social media”

Previously:

Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44256169

Social media is NOT sharing user created content. They are pushing for "engaging content", they have editorial styles, etc.

And it makes sense, nobody wants nor can read all posts if they were not curated.

But that means that social media companies are just content companies like news papers or TV. And they are responsible of what they publish.

Even more important, social media companies should be responsible for the Ads that they show. Scams are too prevalent in social media. Big social media sites profits from the ads, and the users are the ones that pay for it.

If this is enforced, Meta would see a huge cut in their revenue as a good % of their ads inventory is scam. I don't think they will give up serving them tho.

I don't get it. Our supreme court is going to make bad posts go away, making social media a little less of a toilet, and people are talking about ads? Somebody can help me out?