4 ms·
> There was a solution to all of this created back in the '90s. It's called Section 230. It says that platforms that host content aren't legally responsible for
by WanderPanda 5y ago
> There was a solution to all of this created back in the '90s. It's called Section 230. It says that platforms that host content aren't legally responsible for what people post on it. If the platform picks and chooses what goes on its platform then it's a publisher, not a platform. Thus it loses it's Section 230 immunity.
Wow that would be way to clean and beautiful of an solution to be an option nowadays
- adventured 5y agoIt's the reasonable solution to dealing with big tech's recent censorship abuses (yes, censorship; they operate as oligopolies, which means they possess censorship power). Congress and or the DOJ refuse to go after big tech on this front, they refuse to hold them to account to Section 230. There is a contingent of the political elite that is shielding them for obvious reasons.
- klyrs 5y agoNot really. It would crush things like small forums and startups -- if you can't delete porn, spam, off-topic posts, etc. without a full-time moderation crew, then only megacorps can operate websites with user-contributed content. Better to break them up to address the monopsony problems, and maintain the full strength of Section 230.