4 ms·

What is the problem here? Having federal interference in tech is a terrible idea as any laws are usually overbroad and stifle large amounts of innovation that

What is the problem here? Having federal interference in tech is a terrible idea as any laws are usually overbroad and stifle large amounts of innovation that we haven't imagined yet as an unintended consequence. What multiuser system would survive a libel-law attack from a highly unfriendly jurisdiction? Email, forums, comments, and other forms of posting opinions would immediately cause any small operator to shutdown. You just need a friend to make libelous comments on discus and then sue any site you want. 230 isn't a loophole, it's essential for speech on the Internet.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. The President wants to kill 230 because Twitter is censoring his tweets. His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. It's politics; everything's always about politics. Whether this will be good for the industry and society is another question.
- mulmen 6y ago
  They have a right to suppress speech on their platform. If I show up at your house and demand to install campaign signs in your yard because of my first amendment rights what are you going to say? I suspect “get off my property”. Twitter and Facebook and everyone else have those same rights.
- darkarmani 6y ago
  > Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. They clearly state in their ToS that speech is limited on their platform. > His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. Well, his response was to state he was "looking to see if he could suspend their protection". There is nothing to be worried here, because anyone can tell him that the answer is that he can't suspend their protection. It was just infantile bluffing that in most other situations would cause the person bluffing to lose face, but not in the current political reality. In most situations, it's best to not state orders that you can't possible enforce and that reveal your weakness.
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  One thing should be clear - section 230 is just a preemption clause and Donald cannot modify laws unilaterally

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. The President wants to kill 230 because Twitter is censoring his tweets. His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. It's politics; everything's always about politics. Whether this will be good for the industry and society is another question.

mulmen 6y ago
They have a right to suppress speech on their platform. If I show up at your house and demand to install campaign signs in your yard because of my first amendment rights what are you going to say? I suspect “get off my property”. Twitter and Facebook and everyone else have those same rights.
darkarmani 6y ago
> Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. They clearly state in their ToS that speech is limited on their platform. > His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. Well, his response was to state he was "looking to see if he could suspend their protection". There is nothing to be worried here, because anyone can tell him that the answer is that he can't suspend their protection. It was just infantile bluffing that in most other situations would cause the person bluffing to lose face, but not in the current political reality. In most situations, it's best to not state orders that you can't possible enforce and that reveal your weakness.
JAlexoid 6y ago
One thing should be clear - section 230 is just a preemption clause and Donald cannot modify laws unilaterally