Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 436574978679504897
by making the site liable, the site will do whatever it takes to protect itself
regardless of guilt
no, you are missing my point.
i'm not talking about current existing sites
one of the problems, which i think tim discussed before, about that one law protecting providers, was based entirely on the fact they moderated posts.
this made them publishers, which opened them up for legal action that the law was than made to prevent
which means, in theory, that law is still hanging around somewhere protecting people who host things published by other people from being liable for that content, so long as you do not touch it.
oh you mean like how twitter badge is now not only proof that the person is who he says he is, but also that his opinions are twitter aproved, on account of peoples whos opinions twitter doesnt aprove of lose there verification and maybe evem get banned?
no no no. So there is, or at least was, a law that protected sites like twitter, from being held responsible for shit that happened on their site.
this is how craiglist could have personals where there was clearly prostitution going on.
craiglist could not get charged with the crimes of its users, basically
however, the law that grants that protection, was only added in the context that the sites themselves are publishers of these posts. At the time, that would make them liable hence the need for the new law to protect them. However, the only reason, if i remember how it was explained to me, that they are considered "publishers" is because sites would moderate their users content.
if they didn't touch that content, they wouldn't justifiably be called publishers because they don't control the content in any way.
something to this effect
so..
the site shoudlnt do any moderation to get the protections associated with not being a publisher
here, its in this video from tim https://youtu.be/grjZiTN1G5Q?t=157
but basically, the previous law that protected craiglist was only created because sites would moderate their users, but still didn't want to be held liable in any way for the content they missed or didn't know would be bad.
i.e. something like code words
but if they didn't moderate, then they wouldn't fall into the publisher category and would be protected from liability in a different way
i'm wondering if you can make a website that might still fall under the other category, and if that would protect against the sex traffickers bill
it seems like there is potential to capitalize on the growing number of people getting banned everywhere for one mistake or one accusation.
without worry of there being a law that someone can try shut you down with
I see several possibilities
the first one is going private
on closed communities it's hard to get reported
even if you do, it's hard for the complain to be public
because they will have no access
Simply provide the service, and give the users said moderation tools.
the other possibility I see is
you show the reporter to a moderator
peer to peer encyprion intercommunication with peer to peer cloud based decentralized storage of all relevant data that the person storing it cant even access cause its encrypted
downside: no one will own the platform, and anything goes
even stuff like child porn would not be able to be deleted
cause you can not detect who is holding it, and you can not detect what you are holding
on the plus side, it would be a completely free zone, where you could do anything you wanted to do on the internet and get away with it anonymously, unles you a dummy and dox urself
you can't
you will have witch hunts
look at what people think of TOR
what people think would not matter in my example
there is nothing to witch hunt