> Eliminating 230 doesn’t eliminate free speech, it eliminates centralized socialization. This is a good thing for the future of the internet, and for the futur

> Eliminating 230 doesn’t eliminate free speech, it eliminates centralized socialization. This is a good thing for the future of the internet, and for the future of the United States. Yeah, it seems to me that socialization just doesn't scale Internet-style. There's no intrinsic need for massive platforms like Twitter and Facebook. They're kind of just "skins" over the underlying inter-networked machines anyway, not fundamental elements of "the online experience". They just happened. Like an oil spill. TFA pretty much admits that the problem is "impossible": > Compare this with YouTube, whose users upload at least 400 hours of video [pdf] every minute, an impossible volume to meaningfully vet in advance of publishing online. Maybe social stuff like this doesn't scale. I've said it before: if this were a hardware or software problem we (tech/engineer types) would have realized already that we're trying to do the impossible. We set up the Gordian NP Hard knot and then are stunned when it proves intractable. > But an additional purpose of Section 230 was to eliminate any distinction between those who actively select, curate, and edit the speech before distributing it and those who are merely passive conduits for it. I think that distinction is very important and should be recognized in law. At the very least, services should be required to label their content "We Vetted This" vs. "We're Just a Conduit for This".