2 ms·
The difference is that Google gets paid money to serve the ads - HN, etc don't. So you could start by repealing Section 230 only in cases where there's a direc
by Nextgrid 4y ago
The difference is that Google gets paid money to serve the ads - HN, etc don't.
So you could start by repealing Section 230 only in cases where there's a direct monetary cost to publish - this would spare all the free user-generated-content websites while clamping down on malicious companies profiting off serving illegal/harmful content.
- yazzku 4y agoWhat do you mean? Everyone gets paid to serve ads, right? Otherwise, why are you serving ads? Not that I disagree with the accountability. Google and the other platforms are royally irresponsible.
- Nextgrid 4y agoIf I make a scam post on HN, Facebook, etc, their bottom line won't change regardless of whether it gets deleted or how many people end up seeing it. If I make a scam ad, there's a direct correlation between the amount of potential victims seeing it and how much money they make, so there's a monetary incentive to accept malicious ads and not ask too many questions.