4 ms·

>The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals on the grounds that the speech might be offens

>The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals on the grounds that the speech might be offensive. That's not an intermediary liability issue, as such, though. We are arguing over a moot point. If section 230 or whatever does not provide for free speech. Then that is what needs to be improved upon. Perhaps make it more clear that free speech is guaranteed.

shkkmo 5y ago
> If section 230 or whatever does not provide for free speech. Then that is what needs to be improved upon. The problem is that people have wildly different takes on how to "fix" section 230. One group wants to eliminate the liability protections, regardless of how much moderating you do. The concern is that this basically makes hosting user generated content at any sort of scale impractical from a business perspective since scaling competent human review to reduce the legal liability below the value per user is impractical for any sort of modern social media. One group want so eliminate section 230 so only companies that do no moderation have liability protection, forcing social media companies to stop doing any moderation. The concern here is that some level of moderation of abuse / spam seems necessary to keep platforms from degrading into wastelands that no-one wants to use. The moderate middle ground is reforming section 230 to limit the types of moderation activity that can be performed without losing liability protection. This last seems politically unlikely as it doesn't provide a political win, despite being good for society. One group wants to eliminate