• Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Geoblocking is a better solution. Just don’t store that content in Australia and block it from coming in.

    Everything on the internet is effectively permanent anyway

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Holding social media companies responsible for the content they host is a better solution in my view. We hold newspapers responsible. Why not social media? Yes, moderation is expensive but they are wildly profitable, musk aside.

      They don’t need to moderate everything, as the content volume is high, but they certainly could manually moderate all content that reaches a certain threshd. They choose not to and hide behind their users sharing as a reason.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        That would be very bad for free speech. Companies would not take any chances and would remove any content that could remotely bring them trouble. I’m sure there would be lots of bad takedowns and it would be abused just like the DMCA.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Depending on private companies for free speech is bad for free speech in and of itself. So either course has negatives, which means the course with leqsr negative outcomes is best. If they over moderate, they lose users. If they undermoderate they face fines. I’m sure the market force will mean they do whatever is most profitable.

    • [moved to hexbear]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The eSafety commission argued that “well everyone just uses VPNs anyway so it won’t matter”