4 ms·
"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this
by sbelskie 6y ago
"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct)," Cohen wrote. In other words, the North Dakota bill is "incredibly stupid," he wrote.
- throwawaysea 6y agoThis is a pretty biased take from that random person on Twitter that ArsTechnica is quoting (this is all sourced from just this person's tweets). The proposed bill has value in terms of gauging legislative support, inviting copycat bills, in terms of building momentum across states, and ultimately leading to a better piece of legislation that meaningfully protects citizens from big tech censorship. It doesn't have to be viable or "succeed" in the first iteration. You see this tactic (passing something that has no viability) all the time from legislators and activists that are left-leaning in states like California/Oregon/Washington, and now right-leaning states' politicians are adopting the same strategy as well.
- beerandt 6y agoIt also allows a separate route through the federal court system, except one with the potential to be state funded. To what ends? Idk- but I'd say interpretation of the "good-faith" aspect of section 230 is ripe for review.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]