4 ms·
> "Without Section 230, sites that removed sexual content could be held legally responsible for that action (...) even if they wanted to create online spaces fr
by nomdep 6y ago
> "Without Section 230, sites that removed sexual content could be held legally responsible for that action (...) even if they wanted to create online spaces free of sexual content."
The old "think of the children!". Shame on you EFF.
- Spivak 6y agoThis really isn’t “think of the children” so much as it is wanting to create SFW online platforms. HN is a SFW space free of sexual content. It’s just an example of moderation that most people already understand. It’s the same if people wanted to create a woodworking forum and remove off-topic posts about goulash.
- nomdep 6y agoIs using an example everybody agrees on to justify supression of free speech on platform that are de-facto public spaces. There is a lot of middle ground bewtween moderation in a small forum and a complete digital exile of dissenting opinions. For example, imagine how could you be affected if Zuckerberg really hated you. Not just Facebook/Instagram/Whastapp. It wouldn't be too difficult to him to convince other companies to also ban you, including cloudfront protected sites and credit card companies. I realize that five years ago it would have sounded completely insane, but the precedents for those kind of bans are growing fast.
- 542458 6y agoThat’s not “think of the children”. That’s “not everybody feels like running a porn site” - for which there are completely legitimate reasons (more challenging legally, creates issues in some overseas markets, work-safe-ness, and yes - family friendliness).