4 ms·

> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail. For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of a telecommu

by ac29 7y ago

> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail. For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of a telecommunications act that gives legal immunity to platform providers that host user-provided content [0]. Getting rid of it would absolutely kill this site and 99.99% of similar sites by effectively requiring all user generated content to go through legal review. Absent review, a malevolently minded individual could post libelous or other illegal content on a website and have the site itself be sued. It would have a terribly chilling effect on the internet as we know it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

apostacy 7y ago
I don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of 230, but it should be narrowed. I think an ideal compromise would be that ubiquitous mega-platforms should be held somewhat responsible for what their users post, under certain circumstances. If a platform is already protectively policing and curating content, then they are not really a platform, they are more of a publisher. Companies like Facebook and YouTube should absolutely be open to lawsuits for what users post. They are already investing significant resources in regulating what users post anyway, so they are taking responsibility for it. I think even large websites should still get full 230 protection, if they only have minimal moderation to remove spam or blatantly illegal content, like Craigslist. Craigslist is much more of a neutral platform than Facebook.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  They’re investing significant resources in regulation because the public and lawmakers have demanded they do. Craigslist can afford to be more neutral only because nobody’s trying to organize cyberbullying campaigns or Rohingya genocides through Craigslist.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
This is exactly what these companies want you to believe, but the Internet would survive removing platform immunity. The incentive would definitely move in favor of platforms policing content, but the "chilling effect" would be limited if these platforms wished to remain in business (they do). As I noted in one of my comments, if illicit profits were confiscated even, platforms would have significant motivation to remove illicit content, even if they couldn't be charged for criminal activity themselves.

by ac29 7y ago

apostacy 7y ago

I don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of 230, but it should be narrowed. I think an ideal compromise would be that ubiquitous mega-platforms should be held somewhat responsible for what their users post, under certain circumstances. If a platform is already protectively policing and curating content, then they are not really a platform, they are more of a publisher. Companies like Facebook and YouTube should absolutely be open to lawsuits for what users post. They are already investing significant resources in regulating what users post anyway, so they are taking responsibility for it. I think even large websites should still get full 230 protection, if they only have minimal moderation to remove spam or blatantly illegal content, like Craigslist. Craigslist is much more of a neutral platform than Facebook.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
They’re investing significant resources in regulation because the public and lawmakers have demanded they do. Craigslist can afford to be more neutral only because nobody’s trying to organize cyberbullying campaigns or Rohingya genocides through Craigslist.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

This is exactly what these companies want you to believe, but the Internet would survive removing platform immunity. The incentive would definitely move in favor of platforms policing content, but the "chilling effect" would be limited if these platforms wished to remain in business (they do). As I noted in one of my comments, if illicit profits were confiscated even, platforms would have significant motivation to remove illicit content, even if they couldn't be charged for criminal activity themselves.