Cantaloupe

joined 2 days ago
[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 4 points 47 minutes ago

I just don’t see it as authoritarian. Wasn’t on a whim, it was voted, and the majority voted to defederate. Does it remove user choice, sure I guess., but so does any form of moderation.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Voting to block a domain and having that domain blocked isn’t comparable to electing an authoritarian leader. Dbzer0 can choose who to and not to federate with. Users who don’t like that move to another instance easily.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 5 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

Nah, it was decided with a vote. The majority in that server wanted Feddit blocked and that’s what came.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 16 points 3 hours ago

Not Recommended

Pay 2 win dogshit.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Storm the DOJ to see them pedophiles.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I don’t know much about the cults. I imagine a bunch of tiktok idiots treating ChatGPT like god.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 0 points 11 hours ago

I uploaded the PDF into Gemini 3 pro

The PDF itself was slow to obtain, the server took a long ass time to load the PDF.

Show AI Summary

Based on the document provided, this bill—officially named the "Sunset Section 230 Act" (S. 3546)—is designed to completely repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Here is exactly what the legislation does:

Total Repeal: It permanently removes Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) from federal law.

Delayed Implementation: The repeal is not immediate. The law includes a "sunset" delay, meaning the repeal will officially take effect exactly two years after the bill is enacted.

Conforming Amendments: The vast majority of the bill is legal housekeeping. Because Section 230 is referenced in many other federal laws, this bill goes through the U.S. Code—including the Trademark Act, the Controlled Substances Act, copyright law (Title 17), and criminal code (Title 18)—to strike out any cross-references to Section 230.

Definition Updates: It updates definitions in other laws that previously relied on Section 230. For example, it ensures that terms like "interactive computer service" and "Internet" are redefined or point to Section 223 of the Communications Act instead.

In short, it removes the foundational liability shield for internet platforms and gives a two-year runway for the change to take effect.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 8 points 12 hours ago

This is true and very underreported.

 

Have you ever heard or seen something that initially seemed to be totally fine, until you saw just how truly dangerous it actually is?

What is a much bigger threat than initially presented?

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 13 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

Y’all keep an eye out for the Sunset Act. This aims to repeal Section 230, which would greatly aid in ensuring stuff like this doesn’t see the light of day.

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 2 points 13 hours ago

Reminds me of this.

Semi-NSFW

[–] Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Don’t think so, stole it off discord. It was probably shared and screenshotted a fair bit.

 

This is unbelievable!

view more: next ›