• zipsglacier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The key detail about federated social media is that even self-hosters are still providing content from others. That’s how federation works with 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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s how federation works with[out] 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 what? That’s like saying ISPs should require Section 230 to avoid liability because they route packets. We’re talking about legality: it’s stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details. Each instance owner still gets to decide which other instances they want to federate with; some ‘middle hop’ in that connection is irrelevant.

      The fundamental issue that Section 230 is designed to address is the separation between the users posting the content and the platform owners who control who sees it, and the moral hazard that creates. If you eliminate the separation, there’s nowhere left for the moral hazard to exist.

      • zipsglacier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        We’re talking about legality: it’s stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details.

        My point, and my understanding of the EFF article, is that we do need a law that establishes just who can be held responsible, and how so. But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and provers. That would be a world where no one gets rich from internet infrastructure, and I would enjoy that very much.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and [providers].

          Yes, that’s exactly what I’m imagining. (Any tips on how I could’ve made that clearer from my first comment?)