4 ms·

"If so, shouldn't those services just be nationalized?" This definitely doesn't (and shouldn't) follow from an entity receiving a common carrier-type designati

• TameAntelope 5y ago
  My understanding was that Section 230 is just a legal shortcut to shorten how long a case takes to arrive at the, "Oh, this is their First Amendment right as a private company." conclusion. Were Section 230 to be revoked, my understanding is that no change would actually occur, other than cases related to it taking longer.
  • PeterisP 5y ago
    Were section 230 to be revoked, it would not change the platform rights to remove content, but it would enable lawsuits to the platform as they may be considered responsible for leaving stuff up, especially if there were any complaints - so it would push companies to have much more trigger-happy ban regimes than now; having a no-appeal autoban for the first complaint would become a reasonable default strategy.
  • heavyset_go 5y ago
    Section 230 just makes operators of interactive computer services not liable for serving user-generated content. It applies to all interactive computer services. It doesn't give companies common carrier-like designations, and unless they're telecoms, they don't actually have such designations regardless of what Section 230 says, so I'm not sure what the GP was getting at.