4 ms·
Section 230 can be replaced by something which does not allow the abuse which 230 makes possible. The replacement should explicitly disallow censorship, it shou
by the_third_wave 5y ago
Section 230 can be replaced by something which does not allow the abuse which 230 makes possible. The replacement should explicitly disallow censorship, it should only allow the removal of content when ordered to do so by a court. As long as an ISP or hosting provider abides by these court orders they should be protected under the replacement-for-section-230 provisions. An alternative process would resemble the one used in the DMCA but this can only be implemented if there are true penalties on abuse, otherwise there will be a deluge of takedown requests on ideological grounds.
- jjeaff 5y agoWatch how fast every comment section and social media site devolves into a 4 chan lookalike if you stop all censoring.
- the_third_wave 5y agoNot really, the commercial 'net had been humming along without overly blatant censorship on ideological grounds for about 15 years before this became an issue. Forums and social media platforms can be moderated without taking an ideological stance by making sure the moderators are as ideologically diverse as the potential user base.
- jjeaff 5y agoI think you need to give your definition of moderation vs censorship. To me, they are synonyms.
- the_third_wave 5y agoModeration keeps the discussion within legal bounds, censorship keeps it within ideological bounds. Moderation is what section 230 should have been, censorship is how it ended up.