The key detail about federated social media is that even self-hosters are still providing content from others. That's how federation works without* requiring a direct connection from every instance to every other instance. My instance can connect to yours to get your content, but also the content from all other instances that you federate with. And vice-versa.

So, I understand the EFF's argument that, without section 230, I would only federate with extremely small groups that I trust with my full financial life. That would devastaie the open social web.

*Thanks for the good-faith typo correction!

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

That’s how federation works with[out] requiring a direct connection from every instance to every other instance. My instance can connect to yours to get your content, but also the content from all other instances that you federate with. And vice-versa.

So what? That's like saying ISPs should require Section 230 to avoid liability because they route packets. We're talking about legality: it's stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details. Each instance owner still gets to decide which other instances they want to federate with; some 'middle hop' in that connection is irrelevant.

The fundamental issue that Section 230 is designed to address is the separation between the users posting the content and the platform owners who control who sees it, and the moral hazard that creates. If you eliminate the separation, there's nowhere left for the moral hazard to exist.

[–] zipsglacier@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

We're talking about legality: it's stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details.

My point, and my understanding of the EFF article, is that we do need a law that establishes just who can be held responsible, and how so. But maybe you're imagining a world where that question is moot---in a world where there's no separation of users and providers*. That would be a world where no one gets rich from internet infrastructure, and I would enjoy that very much.

*Another typo?! Oof.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and [providers].

Yes, that's exactly what I'm imagining. (Any tips on how I could've made that clearer from my first comment?)

[–] zipsglacier@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Awesome! No, I don't think your first comment needs to be different. You explicitly mention taking an extreme limit in the second sentence. I only realized after our first back-and-forth that I was implicitly thinking of a more near/medium-term situation. Like, how do we get from here, now, to the longer-term world we could hope for.

So, that's how I read the EFF article. But it's of course OK, and (dare I say!?) possibly even good, that we talk about different views on this stuff! So, thanks :)