4 ms·
>When people say "violating section 230," rather than correcting them it's more instructive to understand what they're trying to communicate. I think the first
by jhayward 6y ago
>When people say "violating section 230," rather than correcting them it's more instructive to understand what they're trying to communicate.
I think the first priority is to ensure that the poster's misinformation (i.e., telling people that 230 says/does something it is explicitly designed not to do) does not propagate through this medium. It's a public forum, not a conversation with just the poster.
Then, if possible, you can engage with their disfunction. But given the weaponized role of misinformation today that's the first item in the checklist to be addressed.
- TigeriusKirk 6y agoI really do disagree. I think it's far more important to understand and address the actual concern. Someone is going to. It would be far better if it was someone who understands what is at stake. From my viewpoint, it's very likely Section 230 will be modified. Once that action is underway, you'll be well behind the curve if you're just starting to grasp what people want. Others will have taken that time and effort and figured out how to mold it to their own ends, and the momentum will be building.