3 ms·

The intention and the application of the law are very far apart. If you strengthen the intention, you're not actually reinforcing it, you're reinforcing the app

The intention and the application of the law are very far apart. If you strengthen the intention, you're not actually reinforcing it, you're reinforcing the application. It would mainly help further consolidate the power of Big Tech because they're the only ones who can afford to legally apply the law. Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? Shouldn't we just start over?

ziddoap 2y ago
>Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What does people getting banned or shadow-banned have to do with this? Section 230 is about protecting the host of 3rd-party content from liability. Beyond that, the host still has their rights to choose what they want to host, enforce what rules they want to enforce, and ban/shadow-ban whoever they want. With or without Section 230, private companies can still ban you whenever they please, for whatever reason they please. As is their right to do so. If anything, adding additional liability to hosts (via repealing Section 230) will likely make them even more zealous in who they decide to ban.
Analemma_ 2y ago
> Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? You are yet another person who needs to read the "You Are Wrong About Section 230" TD article, because you're badly misinformed about what it does. Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with operators banning users: they can ban or not ban, with or without Section 230. It has basically nothing to do with freedom of speech either. All Section 230 does-- and it's making me crazy that so many millions of people willfully misunderstand this very simple point-- is ensure that admins who choose to moderate face no additional liability compared to those who don't.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  "You Are Wrong About Section 230": https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
- kittikitti 2y ago
  You're also badly misinformed and trying to gaslight me if you think Section 230 has nothing to do with freedom of speech and content moderation. The article you're recommending is from 2020, before the Supreme Court heard the case in 2023. This means you're actively spreading misinformation or just too incompetent. Here's a more recent source instead of the Big Tech propaganda you're trying to push, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...
  - thot_experiment 2y ago
    ??? Your op argues that 230 most go but you're linking an unabashedly pro 230 article.
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    That article you linked me to-- in an attempt to get a sick mic-dropping moment on me-- is extremely pro Section 230, so you either didn't read it or have such poor reading comprehension that you have no idea what it's actually saying.
triceratops 2y ago
I'm very sorry to say this but you don't understand Section 230. > It would mainly help further consolidate the power of Big Tech because they're the only ones who can afford to legally apply the law. This is what would happen if Section 230 were repealed.

ziddoap 2y ago

>Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What does people getting banned or shadow-banned have to do with this? Section 230 is about protecting the host of 3rd-party content from liability. Beyond that, the host still has their rights to choose what they want to host, enforce what rules they want to enforce, and ban/shadow-ban whoever they want. With or without Section 230, private companies can still ban you whenever they please, for whatever reason they please. As is their right to do so. If anything, adding additional liability to hosts (via repealing Section 230) will likely make them even more zealous in who they decide to ban.

Analemma_ 2y ago

> Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? You are yet another person who needs to read the "You Are Wrong About Section 230" TD article, because you're badly misinformed about what it does. Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with operators banning users: they can ban or not ban, with or without Section 230. It has basically nothing to do with freedom of speech either. All Section 230 does-- and it's making me crazy that so many millions of people willfully misunderstand this very simple point-- is ensure that admins who choose to moderate face no additional liability compared to those who don't.

ziddoap 2y ago
"You Are Wrong About Section 230": https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
kittikitti 2y ago
You're also badly misinformed and trying to gaslight me if you think Section 230 has nothing to do with freedom of speech and content moderation. The article you're recommending is from 2020, before the Supreme Court heard the case in 2023. This means you're actively spreading misinformation or just too incompetent. Here's a more recent source instead of the Big Tech propaganda you're trying to push, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...
- thot_experiment 2y ago
  ??? Your op argues that 230 most go but you're linking an unabashedly pro 230 article.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  That article you linked me to-- in an attempt to get a sick mic-dropping moment on me-- is extremely pro Section 230, so you either didn't read it or have such poor reading comprehension that you have no idea what it's actually saying.

triceratops 2y ago

I'm very sorry to say this but you don't understand Section 230. > It would mainly help further consolidate the power of Big Tech because they're the only ones who can afford to legally apply the law. This is what would happen if Section 230 were repealed.