4 ms·

> I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. Thi

> I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. This is misleading. It seems like you're predicating your entire argument on the idea that there is a version of Section 230 that would require platforms to act on user reports of discrimination. But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. Section 230 immunity doesn't depend on "actual knowledge." The law specifically provides immunity regardless of whether a platform has knowledge of illegal content. Providers can't be treated as publishers of third-party content, period. It's not that "'actual knowledge' no longer matters," it's that it never mattered. Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums.

jjmarr 2y ago
My point is that platforms should have more of a responsibility when they currently have none. > But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. I understand that this is the purpose of the law, and I disagree with it. Section 230 has led to large platforms outsourcing most of their content to users because it shields the platform from legal liability. A user can post illegal content, engage in discrimination, harassment, etc. > Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums. Anti-discrimination law should be applicable to online forums. The average adult spends more than 2 hours a day on social media. Social media is now one of our main public accommodations. If one of the most-used websites in the USA has an unofficial policy of discriminating against Jewish people that isn't covered by the current laws as that policy is enforced solely by users, that means the law isn't achieving its objectives of preventing discrimination.
- ideashower 2y ago
  > platforms should > Anti-discrimination law should I don't disagree with you. But you must distinguish between what the law does, and what it should do, in your view. Otherwise you are misleading people.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    You're correct (as you pointed out elsewhere), so I edited my original comment.

jjmarr 2y ago

My point is that platforms should have more of a responsibility when they currently have none. > But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. I understand that this is the purpose of the law, and I disagree with it. Section 230 has led to large platforms outsourcing most of their content to users because it shields the platform from legal liability. A user can post illegal content, engage in discrimination, harassment, etc. > Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums. Anti-discrimination law should be applicable to online forums. The average adult spends more than 2 hours a day on social media. Social media is now one of our main public accommodations. If one of the most-used websites in the USA has an unofficial policy of discriminating against Jewish people that isn't covered by the current laws as that policy is enforced solely by users, that means the law isn't achieving its objectives of preventing discrimination.

ideashower 2y ago
> platforms should > Anti-discrimination law should I don't disagree with you. But you must distinguish between what the law does, and what it should do, in your view. Otherwise you are misleading people.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  You're correct (as you pointed out elsewhere), so I edited my original comment.