4 ms·

What? I'm pro free-speech. I'm sick of the private companies hiding behind 230 while simultaneously acting as publishers. In theory, 230 is great. In practice,

What? I'm pro free-speech. I'm sick of the private companies hiding behind 230 while simultaneously acting as publishers. In theory, 230 is great. In practice, it's just become regulatory capture as it's selectively enforced. And honestly, I have no problem with the conspiracy theory "problem". I don't think it's a problem. Ideas are countered by other ideas, not restricting speech.

rektide 5y ago
these companies have the same rights as you. your desire to tell these people that you want them to be liable is punching yourself in the face, it means you won't be able to host comments or host other people's voice either. I don't get how you can think what you ask for would only affect them. this us vs them mentality is ridiculous & disgusting. these entities are being treated like the private entities that they are & the twisted meanspirited against-them rage you hit with is hitting against each & every citizen's right. this fabricated fictitious no-lawful-basis that anyone who hosts speech online is suddenly a publisher is some serious china/Russia grade info-fascism & it's so vile, so wrong, such a dangerous disgusting info-fascism that would singlehandedly doom every hope of cyberspace we've ever had. there's no line you propose, just sabtoage, destruction of safe harbor, tearing down hostability. I can not state enough what a shallow shortsighted assessment you've taken in determining that dynamiting the best/only online legal bastion of free speech online we have (because you have stupid bone to picks with some private entities moderation attempts) is good for anyone. there's no selective enforcement. we all enjoy safe harbor. everyone hosting content online needs it. desperately needs it. everyone.