4 ms·

Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the abilit

Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the ability to to moderate content without inherently becoming liable for everything that was posted to their services. Ron Wyden is still in congress and has talked about this purpose, as a response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Forcing sites to have a completely laissez-faire approach to user generated content seems to avoid liability for that user content seems like something that would destroy the internet. Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>seems like something that would destroy the internet. I too remember "the destroyed" internet of yesteryear. We're in a much better place now that 5 companies control your opinion and your access to counter opinions. >Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence? No. We're talking about legal things that the PUBLISHER just doesn't like. Illegal things are always on the table for moderation. Don't try and make the argument about spam. You know very well that the issue here is a room of "content curators" artificially removing "trending" things because of political ideology, or government requested censorship, or just whoever bought the most ads that month.