4 ms·

This is such a disingenuous framing from the AG as well from media outlets who keep misrepresenting section 230. That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Go

This is such a disingenuous framing from the AG as well from media outlets who keep misrepresenting section 230. That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online without needing a highly paid lawyer and a protracted trial to do so. It also isn't about publisher vs. platform, section 230 protects the Times from being sued for comments on their website same as for any bigger or smaller operation. It's tragic how the powers that be in this country are trying to insert a lawyer into every transaction like it's a jobs program, and the infuriating part is that they are trying to convince people that it's for their own benefit.

yibg 7y ago
The cynic in me says this is intentional. The more control over facts there are from any source the more limits there are in general to the spread of information and general discourse. From the governments perspective this is probably desired.
rayiner 7y ago
> That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online without needing a highly paid lawyer and a protracted trial to do so. If you post something defamatory on Facebook, you can be sued, but under Section 230 Facebook cannot. I happen to think that's a good arrangement, but it's definitely about "protecting Facebook or Google," and not about protecting the individuals "express[ing] themselves online."
- notamanager 7y ago
  If Facebook were liable they wouldn't allow the posting or even the possibility of posting in the first place, the law protects individual rights by keeping the liability onus on the author as opposed to the "publisher".
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  > not about protecting the individuals "express[ing] themselves online." Who in their right mind would host content created by individuals online? GeoCities, blogs and personal sites wouldn't exist as they did or do today.

yibg 7y ago

The cynic in me says this is intentional. The more control over facts there are from any source the more limits there are in general to the spread of information and general discourse. From the governments perspective this is probably desired.

rayiner 7y ago

> That law isn't about protecting Facebook or Google it's about ensuring that anyone can express themselves online without needing a highly paid lawyer and a protracted trial to do so. If you post something defamatory on Facebook, you can be sued, but under Section 230 Facebook cannot. I happen to think that's a good arrangement, but it's definitely about "protecting Facebook or Google," and not about protecting the individuals "express[ing] themselves online."

notamanager 7y ago
If Facebook were liable they wouldn't allow the posting or even the possibility of posting in the first place, the law protects individual rights by keeping the liability onus on the author as opposed to the "publisher".
heavyset_go 7y ago
> not about protecting the individuals "express[ing] themselves online." Who in their right mind would host content created by individuals online? GeoCities, blogs and personal sites wouldn't exist as they did or do today.