3 ms·

I don't want to force companies to do business with entities they do not wish to do business with, but I do want companies that engage in ideological censorship

I don't want to force companies to do business with entities they do not wish to do business with, but I do want companies that engage in ideological censorship to lose their immunity to be held liable for damages caused by the entities they do continue to do business with - unless they stop engaging in moral editorializing.

nicpottier 6y ago
Maybe you missed this last week. Section 230 says nothing about providers not being able to moderate: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- moate 6y ago
  The entire down-voting mob I've been railing against the last 2 days missed this. "I want things that I like to be available to me and I want people who deny it to me to be held criminally liable because I don't understand the case law". I think people are misplacing their anger that big-tech has too much control over our world. This is fine to be upset about, but you can't say "they have too much control, therefor it's illegal for them to do the things they're doing". No, the laws you want haven't been written (or repealed). There's also a ton of pie-in-the-sky dreaming that if we could just undo the "bad-part" of 230 then magically Twitter would have to host things because reasons which is a gross misunderstanding. TL;dr- HN commenters tend to skew towards "Engineer" understanding and not "Lawyer" understand, and it's causing them friction with reality lately.