Technology

Generals » Technology Search Posts
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
”The Supreme Court next week will hear two cases — Gonzalez v. Google on Tuesday, Feb. 21, and Twitter v. Taamneh on Wednesday, Feb. 22 — that could dramatically affect users’ speech rights online.”
”Nearly everyone who speaks online relies on Section 230, a 1996 law that promotes free speech online. Because users rely on online intermediaries as vehicles for their speech, they can communicate to large audiences without needing financial resources or technical know-how to distribute their own speech. Section 230 plays a critical role in enabling online by speech by generally ensuring that those intermediaries are not legally responsible for what is said by others.”
Posted Report
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
@CaptainXtra
On this subject, the final decision on Section 230 by the court shouldn’t be expected until June.
Just an FYI.
So you might want to back up and archive some of your favorite stuff around the web in the meantime just incase Section 230 is altered in anyway which would legally endanger said content.
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
The latest horrid proposal is the PROTECTING KIDS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ACT just introduced TODAY.
This portion from the article summarizes the main worry:
“Specifically, it bars children under 13 from creating accounts on social media apps, while also greatly curtailing the algorithms tech companies could deploy on people between 13 and 17 years old. (Users under 13 would still be able to view online content, provided they aren’t logged into an account.) The bill would also require parental consent before anyone under 18 could create a profile.”
“To ensure pre-teens and children don’t create social media profiles, the bill would also create a government-run age-verification program, overseen by the Department of Commerce. The system would require children and their parents to upload identification to prove their age. While the legislation doesn’t mandate that companies use the government system, it would nevertheless represent a significant expansion of the government’s role in the online ecosystem.”
Direct link to text of bill:
It shouldn’t be surprising that they’re pleased to propose this at the same time EARN IT and KOSA have been revived.
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
I hearing that Section 230 is at risk in this case:
The government claims the U.S. Travel Act means one thing in the Woodhull case, another in the Lacey/Larkin case; a new defense motion argues the feds can’t have it both ways.
Should the U.S. Department of Justice get to decide that a federal law means one thing in the five-year-old criminal case in Arizona against veteran newspapermen and ex-Backpage owners Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, while, at the same time, arguing that the law means something else entirely before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit?
In other words, do the feds get to argue that the world is round in D.C., while asserting that it’s as flat as a pancake in Arizona?
Such is the situation described by Lacey and Larkin’s attorneys in a new defense motion to dismiss filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. The brief argues that the DOJ’s indictment and prosecution of Lacey, Larkin and four others in Arizona for “promoting” or “facilitating” misdemeanor state prostitution offenses in violation of the U.S. Travel Act is fatally flawed and should be dismissed.
I’m going to advise as usual that you always backup content likely to be at risk if Section 230 is adjusted in anyway on offline storage devices in case shit goes sideways.
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
Meanwhile in France:
A Controversial, Vaguely Worded Law
The five most popular adult sites in France — Pornhub, Tukif, xHamster, XVideos and Xnxx — have been explicitly targeted by the government. Last month the sites presented their objections to the controversial, vaguely worded 2020 law allowing France’s online content regulator, ARCOM, to seek a blocking order to target sites “that fail to prevent minors from accessing online pornography.”
The sites’ lawyers presented requests to nullify the proceedings and order a stay of the proposed block. The tribunal then gave itself until July 7 to make a decision.
France’s age verification mandate was surreptitiously added to a hastily approved domestic violence law during an atypical and sparsely attended COVID-era session of the French Parliament in July 2020.
The tube sites’ constitutional challenge is based on the legislators’ vagueness in drafting the law. Lawyers for the tube sites have argued that compliance cannot possibly be effected until ARCOM publishes clear guidelines, something the government has conspicuously neglected to do.
CaptainXtra
Lunar Supporter - Helped forge New Lunar Republic's freedom in the face of the Solar Empire's oppressive tyrannical regime (April Fools 2023).

STOP KOSA!
So Section 230 is safe on the federal level for now thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision from what I hear but there’s still other issues in the tech/internet world.
The Heritage Foundation is pretty much openly pro-censorship as they greatly support the revived KOSA/Kids Online Safety Act to censor whatever they deem as harmful:
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
My Little Ties crafts shop

Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide