zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
I know this legislation is in the EU, but in the US such a regulation seems to run up against the concept of free speech. What is the difference between these hypotheticals:

Case 1: I have a blog that takes a conspiracy-level, anti-tax position. In it, I say crazy things like, “The IRS is illegitimate and financial records are unnecessary.” From reading this, someone shreds all their financial documents. As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.

Case 2: I am an open source maintainer of a home assistant program. It includes personal file management. Due to a bug in the software, an end-user’s financial documents are deleted.

The easiest distinction is that the conspiracy reader is taking an affirmative act of destroying their own documents. But, I think that’s less different than at first glance. The software user is setting up a computer system based on an open source program that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data. The conspiracy reader is setting up a worldview based on information that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data.

Why would the software bug be regulated, but the conspiracy falsehood not?

>>elicks+Nc
Because the software isn't regulated but commercial activity is, which I would imagine is also done in the US.

You are still free to write and release any software you want, but as soon as you sell that software you are liable for damages.

See:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/press-room/20231205IP...