3 ms·

> You example does not address my original question in We'll have to agree to disagree then. For example, I am taking an online course right now. There is a ch

> You example does not address my original question in We'll have to agree to disagree then. For example, I am taking an online course right now. There is a chat room where people post questions and there is a moderator that elects individuals to speak. There is a private forum where people can post questions. I absolutely expect them to moderate that content to avoid any slanderous statements. What happens now if someone call into a radio station live call-in program and starts spouting nonsense? Same thing that would happen on the Internet. Let's sketch it out. I don't have money/time to do any moderation at all (or pre-vetting of on air guests) -- Well then I better not do it at all or I better be responsible for the consequences if a nut job gets on. I cut him off ASAP and do my best and what happens? Does a swat team descend and smash down my door? No, maybe I get a cease and desist and nothing more happens, maybe I get filed against in court, maybe I have to defend myself. Maybe I pay for liability insurance (as I mentioned happens in many other similar circumstances). Maybe I am legally compelled to remove from my servers any recorded content related to the incident. Maybe I have to pay damages for the time it was up. This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I am starting to detest. Would there be changes: hopefully yes. And my belief is theses changes would positively effect all online discourse.

davorak 6y ago
Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conference in my example. If you want to focus on one and elaborate I am willing to follow up. > This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I have not used the word impossible or implied it. I have said the change would throw out "a considerable amount of value" and I have talked about value generating venues having to shut down. I do not think you are understanding what I am saying pull 'impossible' from what I have said.
- reggieband 6y ago
  You said: "so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued" I take your statement: "would have to be discontinued" as equivalent to impossible. If you'd like to walk back that statement we can continue to discuss. I have given examples of: Small teams of individuals (e.g. one Twitch streamer + a mod team) broadcasting to tens of thousands of people in real-time including call-in type segments. This happens today and I considered how this would continue if we repeal section 230 (including comparisons to existing public real-time radio call-in segments). I have given examples of medium sized teams presenting classes of 150+ individuals, each of whom can "raise their hand" and be selected by a moderator to take control of the stream to provide their own insights to the group in real time. I considered how this would be possible without Section 230. If neither of those forms of "one to many real time communications" fit your imagination then please be more specific and we can continue. However, in all of this I still have not heard to my own satisfaction a description of a realistic loss we would have if Section 230 were to be revoked.

davorak 6y ago

Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conference in my example. If you want to focus on one and elaborate I am willing to follow up. > This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I have not used the word impossible or implied it. I have said the change would throw out "a considerable amount of value" and I have talked about value generating venues having to shut down. I do not think you are understanding what I am saying pull 'impossible' from what I have said.

reggieband 6y ago
You said: "so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued" I take your statement: "would have to be discontinued" as equivalent to impossible. If you'd like to walk back that statement we can continue to discuss. I have given examples of: Small teams of individuals (e.g. one Twitch streamer + a mod team) broadcasting to tens of thousands of people in real-time including call-in type segments. This happens today and I considered how this would continue if we repeal section 230 (including comparisons to existing public real-time radio call-in segments). I have given examples of medium sized teams presenting classes of 150+ individuals, each of whom can "raise their hand" and be selected by a moderator to take control of the stream to provide their own insights to the group in real time. I considered how this would be possible without Section 230. If neither of those forms of "one to many real time communications" fit your imagination then please be more specific and we can continue. However, in all of this I still have not heard to my own satisfaction a description of a realistic loss we would have if Section 230 were to be revoked.