5 ms·
That goes against what I thought the entire spirit and point of 230 was. That _some_ level of moderation or content policy, to any degree, did not imply full c
by mjevans 4y ago
That goes against what I thought the entire spirit and point of 230 was. That _some_ level of moderation or content policy, to any degree, did not imply full curation / approval of all the content period.
It allows a community or website the ability to enforce against the most obviously problematic content while not forcing it to over censor against what might be reasonable discourse or simply emotionally heated or slightly factually incorrect things. Nor do they need to E.G. investigate if something potentially libelous is true or not; that becomes something for the other parties involved to work out on their own via traditional channels.
- lumb63 4y agoThe problem has, in my opinion, become opposite to what Section 230 was meant to solve. The majority of online communication platforms are, in my opinion, “over censoring” exactly as you described. If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? It’s obvious to me that we shouldn’t be expecting any company to have 100% correct censorship against illegal content, so we shouldn’t allow them to police other content to such a great degree.
- yodon 4y ago>If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? Because the former is nearly impossible to avoid and the later is nearly impossible to accomplish.