Pinned
Agape
@agape.bsky.social
· Jul 15
Followup: Discord Support reverted the account to my email address for recovery, and I was able to get it back. I still worry about the potential for back-doors remaining for a 2nd-pass attack, so I still don't expect anyone to trust that account, but at least I was able to get back into my servers.
Reposted by Agape
And yes, many of us believe companies have not lived up to their moral responsibilities on misinformation/moderation. But (a) no one agrees about what misinformation and moderatable content is and (b) there’s not really a first amendment compliant way to make them without shutting everything down.
December 14, 2025 at 6:08 AM
And yes, many of us believe companies have not lived up to their moral responsibilities on misinformation/moderation. But (a) no one agrees about what misinformation and moderatable content is and (b) there’s not really a first amendment compliant way to make them without shutting everything down.
Reposted by Agape
Bluntly, Section 230 is almost literally the law that the entire internet rests upon, it makes it possible for user generated content to exist on the internet, it’s incredibly important, and genuinely we must defend it at all costs. This place literally would not exist without it.
December 14, 2025 at 6:05 AM
Bluntly, Section 230 is almost literally the law that the entire internet rests upon, it makes it possible for user generated content to exist on the internet, it’s incredibly important, and genuinely we must defend it at all costs. This place literally would not exist without it.
Reposted by Agape
… or they’d have to simply remove everything that they were informed was a concern - again, huge chilling effects, easily weaponize. Or you could put additional responsibilities on them about what content was okay, but that has first amendment problems and is probably unenforceable.
December 14, 2025 at 6:02 AM
… or they’d have to simply remove everything that they were informed was a concern - again, huge chilling effects, easily weaponize. Or you could put additional responsibilities on them about what content was okay, but that has first amendment problems and is probably unenforceable.
Reposted by Agape
Is the current situation perfect? No, it isn’t. You could argue that these institutions should have a requirement to moderate abusive or libelous content when informed about it - but then again, that would mean they’d either have to do a formal legal review of every post…
December 14, 2025 at 6:01 AM
Is the current situation perfect? No, it isn’t. You could argue that these institutions should have a requirement to moderate abusive or libelous content when informed about it - but then again, that would mean they’d either have to do a formal legal review of every post…
Reposted by Agape
In short - Section 230 as it stands is absolutely core to how the internet functions today, and removing it would generate absolute legal chaos and probably result in the end of all social media, all comment sections and lots of basic internet hosting services. The liability would be insane.
December 14, 2025 at 6:00 AM
In short - Section 230 as it stands is absolutely core to how the internet functions today, and removing it would generate absolute legal chaos and probably result in the end of all social media, all comment sections and lots of basic internet hosting services. The liability would be insane.
Reposted by Agape
… so they could attempt to claim themselves as carriers, which means no spam removal of any kind, no removal of any hate speech etc. etc. etc. It might also make them liable for the distribution of any IP they didn’t own, rather than the person who posted the content.
December 14, 2025 at 5:59 AM
… so they could attempt to claim themselves as carriers, which means no spam removal of any kind, no removal of any hate speech etc. etc. etc. It might also make them liable for the distribution of any IP they didn’t own, rather than the person who posted the content.
Reposted by Agape
… they’d have to premoderate content or massively filter all of it so that nothing even vaguely legally concerning could ever be posted, hence massive chilling effects on free speech or organizations simply turning off their social media functions completely OR (possibly) removing all moderation…
December 14, 2025 at 5:58 AM
… they’d have to premoderate content or massively filter all of it so that nothing even vaguely legally concerning could ever be posted, hence massive chilling effects on free speech or organizations simply turning off their social media functions completely OR (possibly) removing all moderation…
Reposted by Agape
Getting rid of Section 230 would mean effectively that every social media platforms, web host and service that allowed comments would now revert to being a publisher in the older sense, and would be immediately liable for all content posted on their platform, whcih would mean…
December 14, 2025 at 5:57 AM
Getting rid of Section 230 would mean effectively that every social media platforms, web host and service that allowed comments would now revert to being a publisher in the older sense, and would be immediately liable for all content posted on their platform, whcih would mean…
Reposted by Agape
• That the previously understood differentiator between a ‘carrier’ that did not have any control on what was posted on their platform (ie. Did not moderate Any content) and a ‘publisher’ that was liable because they chose the content would no longer apply
December 14, 2025 at 5:56 AM
• That the previously understood differentiator between a ‘carrier’ that did not have any control on what was posted on their platform (ie. Did not moderate Any content) and a ‘publisher’ that was liable because they chose the content would no longer apply
Reposted by Agape
So the *point* of Section 230 was to say the following:
• Individual social media platforms are not responsible for user generated content, the original poster is and they can be sued
• The individual platforms are able to moderate those spaces to moderate their platforms without being sued
• Individual social media platforms are not responsible for user generated content, the original poster is and they can be sued
• The individual platforms are able to moderate those spaces to moderate their platforms without being sued
December 14, 2025 at 5:53 AM
So the *point* of Section 230 was to say the following:
• Individual social media platforms are not responsible for user generated content, the original poster is and they can be sued
• The individual platforms are able to moderate those spaces to moderate their platforms without being sued
• Individual social media platforms are not responsible for user generated content, the original poster is and they can be sued
• The individual platforms are able to moderate those spaces to moderate their platforms without being sued
Reposted by Agape
The *other* thing was that it was considered risky for a company to allow *some* content and not others because that *in itself* might be viewed as comment that the statement was untrue and libelous, which *itself* might give the poster grounds to sue in turn for libel! - “you said I was a liar”
December 14, 2025 at 5:52 AM
The *other* thing was that it was considered risky for a company to allow *some* content and not others because that *in itself* might be viewed as comment that the statement was untrue and libelous, which *itself* might give the poster grounds to sue in turn for libel! - “you said I was a liar”
Reposted by Agape
… create Section 230. To give you an example, when I was at the BBC doing internet things in the early 2000s there was a LOT of anxiety about whether the BBC could have *any* user generated content at all because unlike the smaller companies they were a huge target for lawsuits.
December 14, 2025 at 5:51 AM
… create Section 230. To give you an example, when I was at the BBC doing internet things in the early 2000s there was a LOT of anxiety about whether the BBC could have *any* user generated content at all because unlike the smaller companies they were a huge target for lawsuits.
Reposted by Agape
… and no one was clear if it counted as a ‘carrier’ like AT&T which was the only sort of intermediary that wasn’t considered liable for things said across their platform. So there *were* lawsuits, but they were relatively uncommon (but growing in number) which is precisely why people moved to …
December 14, 2025 at 5:50 AM
… and no one was clear if it counted as a ‘carrier’ like AT&T which was the only sort of intermediary that wasn’t considered liable for things said across their platform. So there *were* lawsuits, but they were relatively uncommon (but growing in number) which is precisely why people moved to …
Reposted by Agape
… so suddenly, strictly speaking, all of these new people were liable for all of this content. But the content had been posted in this way (on usenet, on mailing lists etc. etc.) for years before anyone really thought about it too seriously - it had been a niche enterprise…
December 14, 2025 at 5:48 AM
… so suddenly, strictly speaking, all of these new people were liable for all of this content. But the content had been posted in this way (on usenet, on mailing lists etc. etc.) for years before anyone really thought about it too seriously - it had been a niche enterprise…
Reposted by Agape
The law previously was very clear - if an individual wrote a libelous article in a newspaper, and the newspaper published It, then the newspaper was liable for that content. But the explosion of people creating stuff online without and the number of intermediaries had exploded…
December 14, 2025 at 5:46 AM
The law previously was very clear - if an individual wrote a libelous article in a newspaper, and the newspaper published It, then the newspaper was liable for that content. But the explosion of people creating stuff online without and the number of intermediaries had exploded…
Reposted by Agape
… effectively you simply can’t have user generated content of any kind on the internet. Now there’s a LITTLE more conplexity here because the law emerged from a Wild West like situation where there was a LOT of user generated content in the world, and a real lack of clarity about who could be sued.
December 14, 2025 at 5:45 AM
… effectively you simply can’t have user generated content of any kind on the internet. Now there’s a LITTLE more conplexity here because the law emerged from a Wild West like situation where there was a LOT of user generated content in the world, and a real lack of clarity about who could be sued.
Reposted by Agape
Clearly it’s absolutely practically and economically impossible to have a legal review or a bunch of pre-moderators check absolutely every post that was made on absolutely every platform. Which means that *without* Section 230, with law reverting to how it was before…
December 14, 2025 at 5:44 AM
Clearly it’s absolutely practically and economically impossible to have a legal review or a bunch of pre-moderators check absolutely every post that was made on absolutely every platform. Which means that *without* Section 230, with law reverting to how it was before…
Reposted by Agape
… would strictly speaking have to individually review absolutely everything posted on their platform in order to check that the poster was not saying anything that could get them into trouble. It means that Bluesky would have had to review *your post* just then before allowing it to be posted.
December 14, 2025 at 5:41 AM
… would strictly speaking have to individually review absolutely everything posted on their platform in order to check that the poster was not saying anything that could get them into trouble. It means that Bluesky would have had to review *your post* just then before allowing it to be posted.
Reposted by Agape
So, literally, if you were Squarespace and someone set up an account and posted ”X is a pedo” on it, then *in principle* Squarespace could be sued for defamation. Which meant that *in principle* Squarespace, every single web host on the planet and every single site that allowed comments or posts…
December 14, 2025 at 5:41 AM
So, literally, if you were Squarespace and someone set up an account and posted ”X is a pedo” on it, then *in principle* Squarespace could be sued for defamation. Which meant that *in principle* Squarespace, every single web host on the planet and every single site that allowed comments or posts…
Reposted by Agape
It’s very simple. Genuinely very simple. Until Section 230, it was the case that any website that allowed a user to publish any content of any kind could be sued if they said *anything* libelous or bad. That includes web hosts, blogging platforms, social media etc.
December 14, 2025 at 5:39 AM
It’s very simple. Genuinely very simple. Until Section 230, it was the case that any website that allowed a user to publish any content of any kind could be sued if they said *anything* libelous or bad. That includes web hosts, blogging platforms, social media etc.
Reposted by Agape
Remember when Trump tried to storm the Capitol, leadership got evacuated to a secure location. Everyone else (except Rep. Omar) in the House had to remove their pins, put on gas masks, and take cover.
December 14, 2025 at 7:00 AM
Remember when Trump tried to storm the Capitol, leadership got evacuated to a secure location. Everyone else (except Rep. Omar) in the House had to remove their pins, put on gas masks, and take cover.
Reposted by Agape
I don’t know how many times I need to tell these people that leadership is in on this whole thing and will do anything under the sun to prevent Trump from being removed from office.
December 14, 2025 at 6:54 AM
I don’t know how many times I need to tell these people that leadership is in on this whole thing and will do anything under the sun to prevent Trump from being removed from office.
Reposted by Agape
That said? Getting locked in the wheel of Samsara until you break free is basically the core mechanic of roguelikes
Game designer: After lots of hard work we’re proud to announce we’ve created the Wheel of Saṃsāra from the ancient Buddhist classic Don’t Get Trapped in the Wheel of Saṃsāra
December 14, 2025 at 3:06 AM
That said? Getting locked in the wheel of Samsara until you break free is basically the core mechanic of roguelikes
Reposted by Agape
Not easy to get to sleep tonight - have burnt the bridge of whatever career I had left and really don’t feel that my opinions are so extreme that that should have been necessary
Very sad that I felt I had no choice but to resign from The Infinite Monkey Cage - a victory for the transphobes and other bigots - I did it because so much of the media has chosen to believe the kind and empathetic people are a fiction - they are real and so often unrepresented.
December 13, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Not easy to get to sleep tonight - have burnt the bridge of whatever career I had left and really don’t feel that my opinions are so extreme that that should have been necessary
Reposted by Agape
I've listened to Robin, a top flight science journalist, for years.
The UK has reached "firing science journalists for not hating trans people"
The UK has reached "firing science journalists for not hating trans people"
Not easy to get to sleep tonight - have burnt the bridge of whatever career I had left and really don’t feel that my opinions are so extreme that that should have been necessary
Very sad that I felt I had no choice but to resign from The Infinite Monkey Cage - a victory for the transphobes and other bigots - I did it because so much of the media has chosen to believe the kind and empathetic people are a fiction - they are real and so often unrepresented.
December 14, 2025 at 2:28 AM
I've listened to Robin, a top flight science journalist, for years.
The UK has reached "firing science journalists for not hating trans people"
The UK has reached "firing science journalists for not hating trans people"