4 ms·
Internet freedom advocates (like the EFF) have been major advocates of section 230 protections specifically because they can compel sites not to censor content.
by blhack 6y ago
Internet freedom advocates (like the EFF) have been major advocates of section 230 protections specifically because they can compel sites not to censor content.
So basically: no you can't just remove that anti-government, anti-corporate, etc. stuff, because once you do that you are no longer protected, so you better let EVERYBODY speak (within reason) so or else.
- fzeroracer 6y agoThat's not how section 230 works at all. Sites under section 230 are well-within their rights to curate content. They're just not responsible FOR content posted on their platform. It seems like you have an objective misunderstanding of how section 230 works. For example, HN is a platform covered by section 230 as well. If HN removes political content, do you believe that HN should have its section 230 rights revoked?
- imadethis 6y agoThat seems to be the exact opposite of their stated policy position on CDA 230[0]. I don't see anything about how they support private sites losing protections for removing speech hosted on the platform. Do you have a source for your claims? [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230.
- the8472 6y agoSo it's the 4chan empowerment bill?