Such a bill would only prevent social media sites from officially linking or posting to news (assuming it was found legal at all). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet sites from content posted by their users, so this would include links to external news articles.
I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish here anyway. How many people only read news articles because it was in their Facebook feed? Do they really think someone is going to subscribe to the LA Times simply because they stop getting served up their articles in Facebook?
More likely that Blackrock and Vanguard decided to stop subsidizing it.
Probably explains the huge ramp up of firing these divisions from major companies. When they actually have to foot the bill turns out they don't want to.
Such a bill would only prevent social media sites from officially linking or posting to news (assuming it was found legal at all). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes internet sites from content posted by their users, so this would include links to external news articles.
I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish here anyway. How many people only read news articles because it was in their Facebook feed? Do they really think someone is going to subscribe to the LA Times simply because they stop getting served up their articles in Facebook?
More likely that Blackrock and Vanguard decided to stop subsidizing it.
Probably explains the huge ramp up of firing these divisions from major companies. When they actually have to foot the bill turns out they don't want to.