3 ms·

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

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.)