3 ms·

Here's where I'm confused. As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL co

by BluSyn 6y ago

Here's where I'm confused. As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. So how would repealing Section 230 protect free speech? It seems it would in fact do the exact opposite: result in EXTREME censorship on all these platforms. Furthermore, politicians would have direct control over what these platforms publish in form of laws governing publishers. So now we would have literal government censorship on private platforms. Perhaps this is what they actually want? Am I missing something?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. If you just repeal Section 230, then if they don't moderate at all, they will become (at least, based on the legal precedent which motivated 230) distributors, which generally have liability only when they have actual notice of unlawful content. If they actively engaged in preemptive moderation at all, then they will become publishers and fully liable, with no notice requirement, for all content. So, self-initiated moderation becomes all-or-nothing. Section 230 was passed to encourage the middle ground.