So if Section 230 gets repealed (ugh), my understanding is:
1. You can post anything you want on your own website and are personally liable for it.
2. If you host comments (syndicated or otherwise) you could be liable for what's said in those.
So the answer might be an #indieweb style interconnected blogosphere (yes, I said blogosphere) and more peer to peer style interfaces for #activitypub etc.
reshared this
Lorraine Lee
in reply to Ben Werdmuller • •I've noticed a very strong tendency for what's left of the blogosphere to go no-comment. I've assumed most of this is some combination of (1) the extreme tediousness of spam filtering in the current bot-infested state of the web, and (2) the tendency to equate "reply" with "guy." I've been vaguely aware that questions of liability might enter into it. I see this as a loss, as my fond memories of the golden age of blogging are memories of the blogosphere as a conversation, not an essay collection. In the latter case, might as well jump on the (imho execrable) "newsletter" bandwagon.
I like IndieWeb's approach to implementing comments as "web mentions" except for one thing. It tends to turn blogging into a conversation among server-side netizens, which strikes me as somewhat elitist.
As for ActivityPub, I see almost a landlord-tenant relationship between instance operators and ordinary users. People try to explain it in terms of adminning being either philanthropy or professionalism, but I'm not buying it. If it's professionalism, then inevitably the Fediverse gets monetized, and everything that (IMO) INHERENTLY comes with that--paywalls, adwalls, DRM, etc. If it's philanthropy, it's givers and takers, and the former drop out one by one until they're all gone.
I'd rather see a culture of self-hosting arise, but I don't see it realistically happening. Spinning up an instance should be as simple as running a program on one's local machine (desktop or mobile). Communication with other instance should happen without something so paywalled as domain names. To be decentralized there should be some kind of bat signal that propagates through the network indicating a peer looking to connect with its peers. Nothing so centralized as a clearinghouse for such connections. But I can think of no way to do this within the current architecture of the Internet.
#WebMention #Fediverse #SelfHosting
reshared this
Guillaume Rossolini and n8chz đź©Ž reshared this.
James Cridland
in reply to Ben Werdmuller • • •In most other countries, yes, this is the way. It’s not the “hosting” of the comments, it’s the “publishing” of them. So if someone writes “Ben Smells Of Eggs”, and I publish that comment on my site, then you could sue if you felt it was libellous.
Section 230 says that if I automatically publish that, you can do nothing unless you notify me that the eggy message appears, and I then allow it to remain there.
Most other countries say that if I automatically publish that, it’s legally published - and you can take action. So, some form of pre-moderation is a good idea. (Section 230 actually penalises site owners if they pre-moderate - you lose all protection if so).
(This is how the rest of the media works, of course).
Where the server is isn’t material; but where the publisher is, that’s what matters. One of my sites is legally published in the US and owned by a company there, while my blog is published in Australia. A US company might consider it too hard to chase me here.