I fully appreciate the impossibility of faultless content moderation at scale.
I also understand the fundamental significance of §230 in companies not being held liable for UGC etc, especially in the context of large incumbent companies with (near) limitless resources and smaller start-up with almost no resources.
That said, journalists and news companies are very much held liable for the news they publish online, as well as in other channels.
And when social media is just 'social' media in the sense of individuals posting their holiday anecdotes, career progress and what not - §230 totally makes sense, all good.
Where this debate gets interesting and, I fear, highly complex, is when we consider the fact that a majority (* source below) of US citizens source their news from online social media.
So we now have a situation where news companies are held liable for what they publish, yet a majority of the population get their news from sites that are not liable for the content on their sites and are overflowing with disinformation.
I've no idea what the solution is, but boy do we have a problem. And maybe I'm off the mark here, but the more I look at the current state of western democracies, the more I get the feeling that social media is part of the problem. At least in the sense that the negative effects seem to outweigh the positive more and more.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/17/social-media-overtakes-tv-as-main-source-of-news-in-us-analysis-finds?utm_source=chatgpt.com
News versus Social Media - Just a thought
I fully appreciate the impossibility of faultless content moderation at scale. I also understand the fundamental significance of §230 in companies not being held liable for UGC etc, especially in the context of large incumbent companies with (near) limitless resources and smaller start-up with almost no resources. That said, journalists and news companies are very much held liable for the news they publish online, as well as in other channels. And when social media is just 'social' media in the sense of individuals posting their holiday anecdotes, career progress and what not - §230 totally makes sense, all good. Where this debate gets interesting and, I fear, highly complex, is when we consider the fact that a majority (* source below) of US citizens source their news from online social media. So we now have a situation where news companies are held liable for what they publish, yet a majority of the population get their news from sites that are not liable for the content on their sites and are overflowing with disinformation. I've no idea what the solution is, but boy do we have a problem. And maybe I'm off the mark here, but the more I look at the current state of western democracies, the more I get the feeling that social media is part of the problem. At least in the sense that the negative effects seem to outweigh the positive more and more. * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/17/social-media-overtakes-tv-as-main-source-of-news-in-us-analysis-finds?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Those evil folks at NASA
Well you can hardly blame poor old Harald Range for it. As far as he is concerned the NSA is innocent. GCHQHCQG he's not sure about.
He apparently has evidence that it is the evil NASA operating the dragnet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovb6u0cdVXU
What else do you expect from the United States Poultry and Turkey Office?
Re: Re:
The Defense calls exhibits number one and two:
Beastie Boys 1986 album "License to Ill"
Beastie Boys 1989 album "Paul's Boutique"
The Defense rests its case.
Next!