the winds of change always blow, and those that don't keep their ear to the ground get rolled over by it. some days ago, an itch.io mod told me "what does the censorship have to do with big tech antitrust?", and the answer is THIS.
not even itch.io could escape the hammer of this law getting passed, and unfortunately, maybe it needs to get passed.
>Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, a major update to the way big tech companies are treated under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
>Sen. Hawley’s legislation removes the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral. Sen. Hawley’s legislation does not apply to small and medium-sized tech companies.
>“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Senator Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.
>“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with. Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate."
TLDR: if this passes, and you're a large tech company, and you can't prove you're politically neutral, you could get sued for banning certain viewpoints you want to censor for XYZ reason.