4 ms·
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 thing
by 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 ago230 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.