2 ms·
>Section 230 was supposed to make social networks public squares Wrong. There is nothing in the statute that implies neutrality. Section 230 was to enable onl
by athms 6y ago
>Section 230 was supposed to make social networks public squares
Wrong. There is nothing in the statute that implies neutrality.
Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.
- DeonPenny 6y agoHave you looked at the case that created section 230? Because it literally flies in the face of what you just said. It started off as a discussion between social networks. One that didn't moderate its content and one that did. The one that did got sued into the grown because its attempted moderation. So how is that not an attempt to make them into public squares. Also saying you just let them moderate doesn't square with how anyone in a government would look at this especially the US government. Why would anyone want them to regulate themselves.