The ruling, which goes into effect within weeks, mandates tech giants including Google, X, and Meta to monitor and remove content involving hate speech, racism, and incitement to violence. If the companies can show they took steps to remove such content expeditiously, they will not be held liable, the justices said.
Social media platforms tend to argue against these rules for profit motivations. So I can see why lemmy wouldn’t be on their side.
But these kinds of laws can also restrict usage of social media in strange ways. Do you want to post politically in opposition to the ruling party? Hate speech. Do you want to post about your minority’s opposition? Hate speech. You want to post about how the police came and kidnapped your grandma and murdered your dog? Hate speech.
It’s really hard to implement this type of content law without throwing away good parts.
> The ruling, which goes into effect within weeks, mandates tech giants including Google, X, and Meta to monitor and remove content involving hate speech, racism, and incitement to violence. If the companies can show they took steps to remove such content expeditiously, they will not be held liable, the justices said.
Cool.
Should be like this from the start. What other kind of media company can allow people to broadcast whatever they want?
