4 ms·

> 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 sp

> 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.

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.