the only real solution to effective regulation is to go counter to logic. you must deliver what is least wanted by the biggest entities, counter to all of history's tax and economic policy here.
what is needed is a multi-tiered plan of exemptions by which only specific entities qualify for specific exemptions.
basically google and amazon should get nothing or the absolute minimum protection possible to provide by law. small entities, independent websites, and basically people with no money or backing or standing should get 100% protection at all times, and entities in the middle should get some limited protections but only that.
facebook, google, amazon should lose almost everything except the bare minimums required to do business reasonably.
large corporations should mostly lose 230 unless they specifically manage their website counter to the personal interests of the owners and allow/maintain free speech as a public square -- personally id be happier if these services were forced to register as nonprofit or something for it, but compromise could be obtained for medium to large size enterprises given certain concessions made over control.
independent websites should see no change whatsoever allowing lightly hand-moderated discussion forums and such with no copyright liability assuming fair and reasonable moderation. these people have little to no money often, are not businesses even (its uncommon today in the reddit world but still), and are run as hobbies.
people who arent violating free speech shouldnt be unfairly regulated out of the markets and out of the public square in favor of those capable of meeting excessive and specific unilateral regulations.
this is NOT FAIR to big business and every lobbyist in history would be after you since it actually SOLVES the problem without granting them their monopoly status.
I know this seems to go counter to logic but the point is to maintain both the library/archival and the digital public square while only regulating the individuals specifically causing an issue without bias towards anyone's individual socio-economic goals.
My perspective here is we SHOULD be listening to the nobodies and totally the ignoring the somebodies. especially with tech where pretty much any good coder can do a lot of shit in different ways that isnt really copyright infringement despite the needless lawsuits (theres more than equation for most problems lol).
the problem here is much similar to copyright enforcement -- running say this website, thedonald.win, its very hard to stop every user from posting a potentially copyrighted image and its not the administrator's fault that it would happen. If you go out and say "you need the most advanced google bot to prevent all potential infringement" not only have you just CREATED a defacto monopoly by law, but also priced out just about any normal individual who wanted to run a website that probably never would have any infringing content anyway.
so what you need is multiple systems of standards -- not just one tier. it may seem unfair, but its the only fair way. if you have a single-tier of justice for this type of crime than it becomes unfair to one group to the excess of the other.
what you want is equal unfairness. the solution nobody is asking for really. a multi-tier system where certain individuals are exempt and others arent based on things like content, intent, company size, and there should be complaint forms that citizens can file for those who receive exemptions that can begin investigation for a hearing to remove said exemptions should they violate the terms and requirements to obtain them.
If im running my own site i should have way less liability than facebook in terms of everything especially if its not even a business. facebook should have to spend way extra money on moderation and copyright enforcement than I do. individuals who violate free speech should lose protections but not those who dont or otherwise have no stakes in doing so.
That’s not the solution. The solution is to amend section 230 to clearly state that any platform who censors user content becomes a publisher and will have protections removed. That way the law is verbatim instead of implied.
they do want regulation.
the only real solution to effective regulation is to go counter to logic. you must deliver what is least wanted by the biggest entities, counter to all of history's tax and economic policy here.
what is needed is a multi-tiered plan of exemptions by which only specific entities qualify for specific exemptions.
basically google and amazon should get nothing or the absolute minimum protection possible to provide by law. small entities, independent websites, and basically people with no money or backing or standing should get 100% protection at all times, and entities in the middle should get some limited protections but only that.
facebook, google, amazon should lose almost everything except the bare minimums required to do business reasonably.
large corporations should mostly lose 230 unless they specifically manage their website counter to the personal interests of the owners and allow/maintain free speech as a public square -- personally id be happier if these services were forced to register as nonprofit or something for it, but compromise could be obtained for medium to large size enterprises given certain concessions made over control.
independent websites should see no change whatsoever allowing lightly hand-moderated discussion forums and such with no copyright liability assuming fair and reasonable moderation. these people have little to no money often, are not businesses even (its uncommon today in the reddit world but still), and are run as hobbies.
people who arent violating free speech shouldnt be unfairly regulated out of the markets and out of the public square in favor of those capable of meeting excessive and specific unilateral regulations.
this is NOT FAIR to big business and every lobbyist in history would be after you since it actually SOLVES the problem without granting them their monopoly status.
I know this seems to go counter to logic but the point is to maintain both the library/archival and the digital public square while only regulating the individuals specifically causing an issue without bias towards anyone's individual socio-economic goals.
My perspective here is we SHOULD be listening to the nobodies and totally the ignoring the somebodies. especially with tech where pretty much any good coder can do a lot of shit in different ways that isnt really copyright infringement despite the needless lawsuits (theres more than equation for most problems lol).
the problem here is much similar to copyright enforcement -- running say this website, thedonald.win, its very hard to stop every user from posting a potentially copyrighted image and its not the administrator's fault that it would happen. If you go out and say "you need the most advanced google bot to prevent all potential infringement" not only have you just CREATED a defacto monopoly by law, but also priced out just about any normal individual who wanted to run a website that probably never would have any infringing content anyway.
so what you need is multiple systems of standards -- not just one tier. it may seem unfair, but its the only fair way. if you have a single-tier of justice for this type of crime than it becomes unfair to one group to the excess of the other.
what you want is equal unfairness. the solution nobody is asking for really. a multi-tier system where certain individuals are exempt and others arent based on things like content, intent, company size, and there should be complaint forms that citizens can file for those who receive exemptions that can begin investigation for a hearing to remove said exemptions should they violate the terms and requirements to obtain them.
If im running my own site i should have way less liability than facebook in terms of everything especially if its not even a business. facebook should have to spend way extra money on moderation and copyright enforcement than I do. individuals who violate free speech should lose protections but not those who dont or otherwise have no stakes in doing so.
That’s not the solution. The solution is to amend section 230 to clearly state that any platform who censors user content becomes a publisher and will have protections removed. That way the law is verbatim instead of implied.