So, funny story:
Connecticut is moving forward with an "Age Appropriate Design Code" of their own. The state AG's office said, in testimony for the first committee hearing about it, that "Big Tech's challenge to California's protections failed in both federal district court and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." This was untrue at the time, when the preliminary injunction was in place, and it remains untrue now, with the law whittled to a stump.
There is, as far as I understand, no foolproof way for a website to be sure that a visitor is accessing via VPN. So, the only way for a website to avoid liability under this law would be to apply Utah's ID-checking demands to all visitors from anywhere in the world.
By the way, New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes maintains an active presence on X, the Nazi CSAM app. So does NY Attorney General Letitia James. And NY Governor Kathy Hochul. Maybe they should put their money where their mouths are when it comes to social media?
The supporters include the group formerly known as "Morality in Media", plus the right-wing "Concerned Women for America" (founded by the wife of the coauthor of the Left Behind books).... Why are Democrats willing to advertise endorsements like these as though they are good things?
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, has co-sponsored Section 230 "reform" in the past, so he's probably open to changing the status quo (which is bad), but perhaps not willing to go for the blunderbuss approach of all-out repeal (which is better).
I am doubtful that anyone here has adequate information to make a serious prediction about that. Getting through the next ACA crisis may be a higher priority; they could be dealing with a partial or total government shutdown in February, depending on how the chaos of the funding bills sorts out.
This would make platforms, including your friendly local Mastodon instance, liable for having a spam filter. Every forum that allows the downvoting of comments would lose 230 protection, since sorting comments by votes or hiding comments that have been heavily downvoted is prioritization.
It may, for example, be possible to ensure that users who make the requisite choice are only able to access pages where every editor who has contributed to the live content on the page has verified their identity.
What?
It is not obvious that this would be unduly difficult to achieve.
A plain reading of the law's definition of "social media platform" would encompass YouTube, and would therefore forbid teenagers from watching a 90-minute documentary or leaving a browser tab open in the background to play Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
Having followed the overlapping circles of TESCREAL weirdos and Numberwang racists for a while, I learned of Lasker some time ago, and now I welcome everyone to my misery.
The darn thing is that I do believe in the "magic of moviegoing". Back in the Before Times, we'd get a friend crew together and stroll through Boston Common to the multiplex on Tremont Street... an AMC itself, even. Seeing things there like Inception and the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes made for good spectacle and pleasant memories. But over the years, the genuine joy of casual entertainment has been leeched away. My more recent cinema-going makes me sound like a ghastly snob: "Oh, yes, the most ... mainstream film I have gone to see must have been Almodovar's Dolor y Gloria." I ingest plenty of audiovisual junk food, I promise; it's just that popcorn flicks aren't worth the trip anymore.
Does anyone have a link to the bill text? The couple news stories that have come out so far had some puffery about improvements, which sound like they're just echoing the sales talk of the politicians themselves.
So, funny story: Connecticut is moving forward with an "Age Appropriate Design Code" of their own. The state AG's office said, in testimony for the first committee hearing about it, that "Big Tech's challenge to California's protections failed in both federal district court and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." This was untrue at the time, when the preliminary injunction was in place, and it remains untrue now, with the law whittled to a stump.
There is, as far as I understand, no foolproof way for a website to be sure that a visitor is accessing via VPN. So, the only way for a website to avoid liability under this law would be to apply Utah's ID-checking demands to all visitors from anywhere in the world.
By the way, New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes maintains an active presence on X, the Nazi CSAM app. So does NY Attorney General Letitia James. And NY Governor Kathy Hochul. Maybe they should put their money where their mouths are when it comes to social media?
The supporters include the group formerly known as "Morality in Media", plus the right-wing "Concerned Women for America" (founded by the wife of the coauthor of the Left Behind books).... Why are Democrats willing to advertise endorsements like these as though they are good things?
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, has co-sponsored Section 230 "reform" in the past, so he's probably open to changing the status quo (which is bad), but perhaps not willing to go for the blunderbuss approach of all-out repeal (which is better).
I am doubtful that anyone here has adequate information to make a serious prediction about that. Getting through the next ACA crisis may be a higher priority; they could be dealing with a partial or total government shutdown in February, depending on how the chaos of the funding bills sorts out.
Ted Cruz is the committee chair, and in the past he has made confused noises about wanting to reform 230 instead of repealing it, so there might be an opportunity to put some friction in its path.
No, it doesn't actually make sense, as teens in Australia will tell you, and the Helen Lovejoys would just move on to their next cause, like banning VPNs.
The first link points to the same page as the second.
On the Australianet, no one knows you're a golden retriever.
This would make platforms, including your friendly local Mastodon instance, liable for having a spam filter. Every forum that allows the downvoting of comments would lose 230 protection, since sorting comments by votes or hiding comments that have been heavily downvoted is prioritization.
A plain reading of the law's definition of "social media platform" would encompass YouTube, and would therefore forbid teenagers from watching a 90-minute documentary or leaving a browser tab open in the background to play Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
Massachusetts wants to do much the same thing.
Having followed the overlapping circles of TESCREAL weirdos and Numberwang racists for a while, I learned of Lasker some time ago, and now I welcome everyone to my misery.
The darn thing is that I do believe in the "magic of moviegoing". Back in the Before Times, we'd get a friend crew together and stroll through Boston Common to the multiplex on Tremont Street... an AMC itself, even. Seeing things there like Inception and the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes made for good spectacle and pleasant memories. But over the years, the genuine joy of casual entertainment has been leeched away. My more recent cinema-going makes me sound like a ghastly snob: "Oh, yes, the most ... mainstream film I have gone to see must have been Almodovar's Dolor y Gloria." I ingest plenty of audiovisual junk food, I promise; it's just that popcorn flicks aren't worth the trip anymore.
Does anyone have a link to the bill text? The couple news stories that have come out so far had some puffery about improvements, which sound like they're just echoing the sales talk of the politicians themselves.
We'll probably see KOSA reintroduced first.