@Hyolobrika@gabriel So for example, if I'm providing a service for free, and you are using this service, and if I will ban you for whatever reason, you're going to sue me? Sounds like a stupidest idea ever.
This is an interesting and insightful talk. And the idea is definitely good. But it can't be the whole story IMO. Just making sure the rules are clear and there's due process isn't enough. Not everyone can agree on what the rules *should be*. And democracy isn't a solution either. It's too collectivistic. If a site, say, bans anything that contradicts the scientific consensus (even if they are very clear about what that means and follow all these due process rules), there should be an outlet for people who want to be able to do that, and that can only be solved (AFAICS) by competition of rulesets and enforcers. This is the case even if a majority of people voted for that rule.
@gabriel@Hyolobrika In the talk they mention Mastodon servers too. But even if it only applies to large services... People should stop trying to "fix" them, this is not going to work. Eventually these services will be made obsolete by competitors who use better technology. We're working on it.
@silverpill@mitra.social I am concerned the big picture plan (haven't seen he futo talk yet) is to basically try to regulate away small players entirely. Adding liability is a way to do it, but it sounds nice when people think of stopping big tech from censoring them, which is a fool's errand.
I'm assuming @Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net was thinking more in terms of large services that most people are expected to be able to interact with one way or another (like github or Wikipedia).