5 ms·

It's not a different issue at all; it's the same issue. Kill 230 and Big Tech (or any tech) has to choose one or the other, that being the distinction before t

It's not a different issue at all; it's the same issue. Kill 230 and Big Tech (or any tech) has to choose one or the other, that being the distinction before the Internet.

nabla9 2y ago
>has to choose one or the other, There is no choice. Common carrier thing you suggest does not appear if Section 230 is removed. Big Tech would become publisher. They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. Small forums would disappear. You can't run small forum if you can be sued.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  You're not thinking more than one move ahead. Big Tech being a publisher means that their user-generated content would drop to the level of "Letters to the Editor" in the NY Times. Thus their revenue would dry up, too, because all those teen-agers walking around staring at their phones are doing so because they or their friends or someone they admire has content on there. They're not looking at passive media.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    Now tell me about small sites. Or sites like Wikipedia, running mastodon instance, blogging, .. Those who have money to sue, like Saudi Arabian government, Israel, or billionaires and lobby groups would have a field day.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      Now tell me about small paper magazines, which ARE publishers and have existed for 100's of years.
      - unclenoriega 2y ago
        Small paper magazines consisting mostly or entirely of user-generated, unedited content?
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        > user-generated They had writers. Usually those were not employees. They had to lawyer-ize everything they printed. If you sent in a Letter to the Editor, they had to scrutinize that, too, and call you to be sure you really wrote it. If you're saying it's so important that people with no skill whatsoever be able to say whatever they want with no liability to the company that prints it; furthermore, that that company be able to monetize their content: I guess we're disagreeing. I don't think the world would be any worse off if that were no longer the case. In fact, we'd probably be better off.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. There is no way that scales IMO.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Is that supposed to be the killer argument? Who cares if giant companies can't "scale" any more?
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      I mean there is no way they can whack-a-mole every problematic user post. Even if they could- users wouldn't stand for it and would look for alternatives. If they started losing users to this they'd also work on a solution or new laws. I don't think a post-section 230 web is pessimistic but that's my opinion. We shall see I suppose.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        I say, "bring it on." The current web is an open sewer and something would evolve that would probably be better. It could hardly be any worse. If that turns out not to be the case, we could always reinstate 230.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Yes, I agree.

It's not a different issue at all; it's the same issue. Kill 230 and Big Tech (or any tech) has to choose one or the other, that being the distinction before the Internet.

nabla9 2y ago

>has to choose one or the other, There is no choice. Common carrier thing you suggest does not appear if Section 230 is removed. Big Tech would become publisher. They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. Small forums would disappear. You can't run small forum if you can be sued.

AlbertCory 2y ago
You're not thinking more than one move ahead. Big Tech being a publisher means that their user-generated content would drop to the level of "Letters to the Editor" in the NY Times. Thus their revenue would dry up, too, because all those teen-agers walking around staring at their phones are doing so because they or their friends or someone they admire has content on there. They're not looking at passive media.
- nabla9 2y ago
  Now tell me about small sites. Or sites like Wikipedia, running mastodon instance, blogging, .. Those who have money to sue, like Saudi Arabian government, Israel, or billionaires and lobby groups would have a field day.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Now tell me about small paper magazines, which ARE publishers and have existed for 100's of years.
    - unclenoriega 2y ago
      Small paper magazines consisting mostly or entirely of user-generated, unedited content?
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        > user-generated They had writers. Usually those were not employees. They had to lawyer-ize everything they printed. If you sent in a Letter to the Editor, they had to scrutinize that, too, and call you to be sure you really wrote it. If you're saying it's so important that people with no skill whatsoever be able to say whatever they want with no liability to the company that prints it; furthermore, that that company be able to monetize their content: I guess we're disagreeing. I don't think the world would be any worse off if that were no longer the case. In fact, we'd probably be better off.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. There is no way that scales IMO.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Is that supposed to be the killer argument? Who cares if giant companies can't "scale" any more?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I mean there is no way they can whack-a-mole every problematic user post. Even if they could- users wouldn't stand for it and would look for alternatives. If they started losing users to this they'd also work on a solution or new laws. I don't think a post-section 230 web is pessimistic but that's my opinion. We shall see I suppose.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I say, "bring it on." The current web is an open sewer and something would evolve that would probably be better. It could hardly be any worse. If that turns out not to be the case, we could always reinstate 230.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Yes, I agree.