4 ms·
Woah, this is very dangerous. We'd basically have to go back to web 1 (no user-generated content) if Section 230 were struck down.
by carlosdp 4y ago
Woah, this is very dangerous. We'd basically have to go back to web 1 (no user-generated content) if Section 230 were struck down.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoDepends on what replaces it. If it's replaced by "you are liable for everything on your site, even if it's user generated", then yes. If it's something in between that and the current Section 230, then... maybe we wind up somewhere in between? (But I don't know what that "something in between" would be, and I can't predict what the effects would be...)
- ajhurliman 4y agoOr you’d end up with a lot of smaller publishers who can vouch for the content of their community to a single, meta-publisher. This is basically in-place already, if your subreddit becomes toxic they ban it. And the moderators on each sub aren’t Reddit employees (for the most part). Facebook has the same thing with groups and pages, individuals moderate it and FB bans it if it goes off the rails. The logical next step would be trying to hold the page/ community owners legally liable for their content. This new responsibility would imply ownership of the content, which would mean more ability to directly monetize it and possibly cut out the meta organizer (FB, Reddit, etc) by moving the community to another platform if there’s any friction. Obviously the platforms don’t want a looser connection with their participants, they want all of the money and none of the responsibilities.