4 ms·

> Wyden, now a Senator, stated that he intended for Section 230 to be both "a sword and a shield" for Internet companies, the "sword" allowing them to remove co

> Wyden, now a Senator, stated that he intended for Section 230 to be both "a sword and a shield" for Internet companies, the "sword" allowing them to remove content they deem inappropriate for their service, and the shield to help keep offensive content from their sites without liability. However, Wyden warned that because tech companies have not been willing to use the sword to remove content, they could be at risk of losing the shield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Platform_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Platform_neutralit... Given that hate speech (the context of that quote) is very often political and/or protected free speech, I don't think one of the two authors of the bill agrees with how you're interpreting it.

catiopatio 4y ago
I’m claiming that section 230 is a fundamentally flawed construction that privatized the modern public square, while socializing the costs inherent in that privatization. I’m not debating whether section 230 is functioning in accordance with its authors’ intentions; frankly, what they intended doesn’t matter. Section 230 was a totally inappropriate give-away of unique privileges without requiring commiserate public value be returned in-kind, contrary to our long history of requiring that common carriers serve the public without discrimination in exchange for the unique privilege of being shielded from liability.
- NegativeK 4y ago
  Ah. I see where you're coming from, but I frankly believe that the internet as we know it is fundamentally unworkable without the ability for some platforms to restrict the voices of some users. It's also fundamentally unworkable if we make the platforms liable for the users words. I'm up for solutions like breaking up the larger platforms so that users have more choice, but I consider 230 to be integral in mass user interaction. To put it another way: I'm uninterested in an internet where websites are legally forced to either be sterile and userless or act like 4chan.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    4chan is largely 4chan because : - it's reputation is attracting trolls (BTW, does 4chan even have the minimum 50M monthly users to qualify ?) - it has that anonymous (rather than pseudonymous) social convention I see a lot of "the sky is falling" reactions here, but even if large websites were prevented from banning content, nothing forbids them from allowing users themselves hide the (pseudonym-linked) content that they deem undesirable, a feature that is already widespread. (Also, large platforms are not the Internet, and not even the Web, and I would be happy to see them gone.)

catiopatio 4y ago

I’m claiming that section 230 is a fundamentally flawed construction that privatized the modern public square, while socializing the costs inherent in that privatization. I’m not debating whether section 230 is functioning in accordance with its authors’ intentions; frankly, what they intended doesn’t matter. Section 230 was a totally inappropriate give-away of unique privileges without requiring commiserate public value be returned in-kind, contrary to our long history of requiring that common carriers serve the public without discrimination in exchange for the unique privilege of being shielded from liability.

NegativeK 4y ago
Ah. I see where you're coming from, but I frankly believe that the internet as we know it is fundamentally unworkable without the ability for some platforms to restrict the voices of some users. It's also fundamentally unworkable if we make the platforms liable for the users words. I'm up for solutions like breaking up the larger platforms so that users have more choice, but I consider 230 to be integral in mass user interaction. To put it another way: I'm uninterested in an internet where websites are legally forced to either be sterile and userless or act like 4chan.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  4chan is largely 4chan because : - it's reputation is attracting trolls (BTW, does 4chan even have the minimum 50M monthly users to qualify ?) - it has that anonymous (rather than pseudonymous) social convention I see a lot of "the sky is falling" reactions here, but even if large websites were prevented from banning content, nothing forbids them from allowing users themselves hide the (pseudonym-linked) content that they deem undesirable, a feature that is already widespread. (Also, large platforms are not the Internet, and not even the Web, and I would be happy to see them gone.)