4 ms·

Section 230 is extremely broad and powerful. The whole point of it is to allow websites full immunity from legal action over the content of their website regard

by makomk 5y ago

Section 230 is extremely broad and powerful. The whole point of it is to allow websites full immunity from legal action over the content of their website regardless of how much editorial control they exercise over it, so long as they're not the ones writing the actual words or posting the actual pictures. They can use their power to shape what is and isn't allowed to be said into a chosen narrative and still be immune from legal action over that narrative. It's just that any criticism of this is outside the realm of mainstream discourse, seemingly because one of the major ways in which websites have used that responsibility-free narrative shaping power recently is against Donald Trump and so questioning Section 230 is associated with Trump support.

akolbe 5y ago
Actually, Democrats have criticised Section 230 as well. They complain that websites use Section 230 as a shield in order not to do any moderation of hate speech and the like at all. Nancy Pelosi e.g. has called Section 230 a “gift” to tech companies “that could be removed.” See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/technology/section-230-hate-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/technology/section-230-ha...
blululu 5y ago
Calls to end section 230 have come from across the isle. Note that without section 230 Twitter could have been sued for allowing Trump to post some of the things he wrote over the past 5 years. I recall a New York Times oped from last summer that advocated for such a policy. The trouble is government regulations of speech generally have serious implications, and every attempt to limit free speech struggles to replace it with anything better. Chesterton’s fence comes to mind here. The motivation for section 230 is to let the Internet operate as a publishing medium for small voices. Free speech isn’t always pretty. A more general curtailment of the law would have chilling effects that would likely hit small/medium businesses more than Facebook or Twitter which already have content moderation policies. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence
- samus 5y ago
  230 could be limited to apply only if content creators are natural persons and accredited academic institutions*. There should be no inhibition for natural persons to share information and their opinions. However, incorporated content producers are often fronts for political parties, wealthy private donators and foreign actors to amplify their opinion. They are quite resourceful and influental already and don't need further amplification by allowing social networks and news aggregators to share their content for them. Edit: The term "academic institutions" should be understood to also include government archives open to the public and content from museums and the like.

by makomk 5y ago

akolbe 5y ago

Actually, Democrats have criticised Section 230 as well. They complain that websites use Section 230 as a shield in order not to do any moderation of hate speech and the like at all. Nancy Pelosi e.g. has called Section 230 a “gift” to tech companies “that could be removed.” See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/technology/section-230-hate-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/technology/section-230-ha...

blululu 5y ago

Calls to end section 230 have come from across the isle. Note that without section 230 Twitter could have been sued for allowing Trump to post some of the things he wrote over the past 5 years. I recall a New York Times oped from last summer that advocated for such a policy. The trouble is government regulations of speech generally have serious implications, and every attempt to limit free speech struggles to replace it with anything better. Chesterton’s fence comes to mind here. The motivation for section 230 is to let the Internet operate as a publishing medium for small voices. Free speech isn’t always pretty. A more general curtailment of the law would have chilling effects that would likely hit small/medium businesses more than Facebook or Twitter which already have content moderation policies. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence

samus 5y ago
230 could be limited to apply only if content creators are natural persons and accredited academic institutions*. There should be no inhibition for natural persons to share information and their opinions. However, incorporated content producers are often fronts for political parties, wealthy private donators and foreign actors to amplify their opinion. They are quite resourceful and influental already and don't need further amplification by allowing social networks and news aggregators to share their content for them. Edit: The term "academic institutions" should be understood to also include government archives open to the public and content from museums and the like.