Most active commenters
  • PaulDavisThe1st(4)

←back to thread

The NO FAKES act has changed, and it's worse

(www.eff.org)
278 points miles | 12 comments | 24 Jun 25 05:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.811s | source | bottom
Show context
jekwoooooe[dead post] ◴[24 Jun 25 13:12 UTC] No.44365872[source]▶
[flagged]
Spivak ◴[24 Jun 25 13:24 UTC] No.44366000[source]▶
It would also mean the end of HN.
replies(2): >>44366222 #>>44369112 #
devwastaken ◴[24 Jun 25 13:46 UTC] No.44366222[source]▶
thats also good. online services need to be held responsible for what they host. no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.
replies(2): >>44366273 #>>44366609 #
1. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[24 Jun 25 13:52 UTC] No.44366273[source]▶
what other thing is there that is equivalent to online services publishing user-generated content?
replies(6): >>44366556 #>>44366578 #>>44366584 #>>44366644 #>>44366959 #>>44367031 #
2. dlivingston ◴[24 Jun 25 14:19 UTC] No.44366556[source]▶
A library, record store, or craft markets are the only physical analogues I can think of.
3. pessimizer ◴[24 Jun 25 14:21 UTC] No.44366578[source]▶
The online publishing of unedited user-generated content to the open internet may not be a business model that works.
replies(1): >>44366698 #
4. kjkjadksj ◴[24 Jun 25 14:21 UTC] No.44366584[source]▶
Your local telephone pole
replies(1): >>44367187 #
5. skeeter2020 ◴[24 Jun 25 14:27 UTC] No.44366644[source]▶
the editorial section of the newspaper?
replies(1): >>44367175 #
6. unaindz ◴[24 Jun 25 14:32 UTC] No.44366698[source]▶
Not everything has to be a business model
7. 9rx ◴[24 Jun 25 14:56 UTC] No.44366959[source]▶
There is no direct equivalent. The closest social analog is the coffeeshop/bar, but that doesn't quite fit technically. The closer technical fits don't align socially.
8. hattmall ◴[24 Jun 25 15:04 UTC] No.44367031[source]▶
Literally anywhere with a flyer stuck on the wall. Or graffiti. Is the railroad liable for graffiti spray painted on trains? (Actually asking)
replies(1): >>44367168 #
9. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[24 Jun 25 15:17 UTC] No.44367168[source]▶
In all these cases, the person who adds "content" does so without permission from the owner of the thing to which it is added.
10. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[24 Jun 25 15:18 UTC] No.44367175[source]▶
All curated by the newspaper itself. The whole point of Sec 230 is that the host does not need to curate.
11. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[24 Jun 25 15:20 UTC] No.44367187[source]▶
The people who installed that pole do not actually want you to post things on it.
replies(1): >>44378687 #
12. kjkjadksj ◴[25 Jun 25 15:52 UTC] No.44378687{3}[source]▶
Shouldn’t have chosen a material so amenable to staples at eye level then with no removal mechanism save for the work of the elements.