6 ms·

GOP is talking big about Section 230 reform, but it is absurd on its face. Prior to Section 230, if you censor ANY content (say, child pornography) then you ar

GOP is talking big about Section 230 reform, but it is absurd on its face. Prior to Section 230, if you censor ANY content (say, child pornography) then you are "moderating" the discussion and are liable for ALL content. If Twitter deletes a death threat tweet, why didn't they delete the defamatory tweet against Hunter Biden or whomever? Biden could sue. So Section 230 allows websites to delete the kiddie porn without becoming a "publisher" of everything that gets posted. Biden can sue the poster but not Twitter. Reforming (weakening) 230 would force Facebook, Twitter, etc. to choose between allowing all content, and blocking anything that could be the basis for a lawsuit. Of course Facebook and Twitter are not going to become an 8chan free-for-all, so they would be forced to crack down harder, censoring much more aggressively. Also far-right sites (e.g. InfoWars) very much do not want increased liability here. So "230 reform" is a useful rallying cry for conservatives who feel censored (rightly or wrongly) by social media giants, but the idea is so obviously bad that I can't imagine they'll go beyond minor tweaks.

afrojack123 6y ago
This is has the right idea. Both politicians and tech companies are in on it. Politicians get to silence people and control the narrative. Tech companies turn into publishing houses and now have a moat (moderation and legal costs, political connections).
microtherion 6y ago
This is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does, and what its removal would mean. <meta> It's rather sad that it has been downvoted, and those doing the downvoting should think a bit about their motivations. </meta>
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago
  "is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does" That's correct. "and what its removal would mean." That's incorrect, since it promotes the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to get rid of Section 230 by replacing it with a different set of rules, not only by simply erasing it out.
nullc 6y ago
> and blocking anything that could be the basis for a lawsuit. Almost. That is the situation it would create for small venues like Hacker News-- extreme liability issues and heavy handed moves to mitigate them (if not just a shutdown as would probably be the case for many non-for-profit venues). But Facebook, Google? These multibillion dollar companies have very little to fear from a lawsuit by the likes of me or you. They could just staff up their legal team and work anyone who sues them into bankruptcy-- they already do. It isn't like litigation against parties for content they post in the US is easy to begin with even when you're not going after a 900 lb guerilla. It would be bad news for them but ultimately just a cost of doing business. It might even ultimately be the best for their businesses as the ability to endure lawsuits would be one hell of a moat.

afrojack123 6y ago

This is has the right idea. Both politicians and tech companies are in on it. Politicians get to silence people and control the narrative. Tech companies turn into publishing houses and now have a moat (moderation and legal costs, political connections).

microtherion 6y ago

This is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does, and what its removal would mean. <meta> It's rather sad that it has been downvoted, and those doing the downvoting should think a bit about their motivations. </meta>

cbnotfromthere 6y ago
"is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does" That's correct. "and what its removal would mean." That's incorrect, since it promotes the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to get rid of Section 230 by replacing it with a different set of rules, not only by simply erasing it out.

nullc 6y ago

> and blocking anything that could be the basis for a lawsuit. Almost. That is the situation it would create for small venues like Hacker News-- extreme liability issues and heavy handed moves to mitigate them (if not just a shutdown as would probably be the case for many non-for-profit venues). But Facebook, Google? These multibillion dollar companies have very little to fear from a lawsuit by the likes of me or you. They could just staff up their legal team and work anyone who sues them into bankruptcy-- they already do. It isn't like litigation against parties for content they post in the US is easy to begin with even when you're not going after a 900 lb guerilla. It would be bad news for them but ultimately just a cost of doing business. It might even ultimately be the best for their businesses as the ability to endure lawsuits would be one hell of a moat.