3 ms·
> No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderat
by throwawayffffas 6y ago
> No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies against speech that have never existed before
Section 230 absolves online platforms that feature user generated content from publisher liabilities, by revoking it facebook would be liable for everything on its platform. For example if someone posts on facebook that a certain vaccine causes hair loss, with section 230 revoked the manufacturer of said vaccine could sue facebook for libel.
Edit: typos
- rayiner 6y agoOnly very narrow kinds of disinformation that would meet the extremely high standards for libel in the US. Most of what is deemed “disinformation” or “hate speech” on Facebook would not be actionable.
- likpok 6y agoSection 230 allows Facebook to do moderation without exposing it to liability for everything on the platform. Look at the original motivation: Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where Prodigy's anti-porn moderation meant that Stratton was able to sue them for defamation. Revoking it would mean Facebook would do less moderating. I do not think this will have the effect on disinformation that you want. One thing to note here: Stratton Oakmont was suing Prodigy because someone posted a comment saying that they were criminals. The subject of the comment, Danny Porush, went to federal prison for securities fraud. All this is to say: the original comment was likely true and the lawsuit was disinformation.