Section 230 is an extraordinary demonstration of Chesterton's Fence. If we want, as a society, to remove safe harbor provisions from CDNs, we need to openly an

Section 230 is an extraordinary demonstration of Chesterton's Fence. If we want, as a society, to remove safe harbor provisions from CDNs, we need to openly and widely discuss what the consequences would be: - end of open social media platforms (Meta properties, TikTok, Tumblr, Twitter and clones) - end of open content CDNs and streaming platforms (YouTube, Twitch) - end of public cultural repositories (Internet Archive, possibly Wiki properties) etc. The end, that is, in any form we are familiar with. We can do that; we just need to be clear about why this section has persisted against numerous assault, even against the "think of the children!" type. Those interested in debate around the nature and limits of "free speech" in an open society take note—what comes after a removal of safe harbor provisions will enrage all of you. We'll have closed-garden, 100% moderated, default-no, forums—or end-to-end encrypted darkweb alternatives. I realize the specific battle is around whether "AI" should get differential treatment. It's a battle, and a hill to capture, in a broader war, with society-defining scope. The MSM is doing a sh-tty job around this, on the whole. I just heard an episode of This American Life which sounded as if it were written, more or less, by a thinktank opposed to Section 230, which picked an outlier example of perverse consequences, centered it, and then asked snarky ill-informed questions which amounted to the assertion that "for too long Big Tech companies have exploited their money and power to make themselves uniquely unaccountable."