this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
88 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
43822 readers
719 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What do you mean? It basically switches to a more corrupt system where your website is safe in exchange for a bribe, and timely censorship requests.
Every mega corp will be fine.
If the news were that it was being amended to make carve outs for businesses who pay an amount of money, then I would agree.
But the news is that it would be repealed entirely.
This means you could not bribe the government once to protect you from all lawsuits - you would have to bribe each and every judge involved in each and every lawsuit, and/or each and every juror.
1 Billion people sue your company. I don't think any megacorp would be happy about suddenly having to pay out 1 billion bribes and to do so as a regular ongoing expense.
The least expensive option for the corporations is to not have this repealed. As a result, that is what they would prefer to put that money into instead. Way cheaper to bribe this into not passing than it is to have to do it continuously or multiple times and/or losing those income streams.
Functionally, every law has a carve out for businesses who pay an amount of money.
Sure, but my point is that it does not mean they want to. They will take the cheapest option possible - if there isn't one, they usually try to invent a new cheaper option for themselves. In the realm of bribery, if you are going to bribe people anyway, why wouldn't you pay a couple bribes to avoid paying indefinite bribes?
It's complicated. Only a few companies can afford to pay out bribes to avoid lawsuits, which means they'd effectively be destroying all of their competition in exchange. Bluesky and Lemmy can't afford to pay their way out of lawsuits, after all. This would be a handy win for total monopolization of the internet under only a few companies, even if it might also be expensive.
On top of that they were starting down the barrel of FTC for monopoly practices, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of backroom deal with the government here. Maybe if the tech companies allow Section 230 to be repealed and for age-verification laws to pass, the government doesn't force their companies to be broken up in antitrust actions.
I have no idea what is going to happen.