2026-04-29 10:53 UTC
I'm usually a big fan of the EFF, but it's wrong on this one. If you decentralize to the limit -- i.e., such that each user is running their own instance for themselves -- it becomes okay for the service to become liable for the user's speech because the user and the service owner are one in the same. In reality, (extremely) federated social media is the *only* kind that can survive without Section 230 and thus repealing it entirely would be a win for the Fediverse.
(You could argue "but users won't go to the trouble of running their own instance," but to that I'd say "they will if the law doesn't give them any other choice, short of not participating at all.")
Replies (1)
-
@zipsglacier@lemmy.world 2026-04-29 11:38
The key detail about federated social media is that even self-hosters are still *providing* content from others. That's how federation works without* requiring a direct connection from every instance to every other instance. My instance can connect to yours to get your content, but *also* the content from all other instances that you federate with. And vice-versa. So, I understand the EFF's argument that, without section 230, I would only federate with *extremely* small groups that I trust with my full financial life. That would devastaie the open social web. *Thanks for the good-faith typo correction!