This argument isn’t wholly unreasonable. But it would lead, in practical terms, simply to the abolition of anonymous and pseudonymous accounts on social media.

This argument isn’t wholly unreasonable. But it would lead, in practical terms, simply to the abolition of anonymous and pseudonymous accounts on social media. I could live with that, but I get the feeling those calling for Sec 230 abolition want something entirely different. I’m also not entirely sure what sort of “liability” people are talking about. In the US, there is very little liability for any sort of speech. Insults, no matter how gross and objectionable, are generally protected as simply being subjective opinions, for example. So is blatant racism. Only statements of facts that are false, made knowingly and with malicious intent, are actionable. I believe very little of what people object to on social media actually falls under that definition.