teakettle007

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   Are you suggesting we didn’t have conversations like this, quite successfully, on Usenet and other message boards prior to the CDA being passed in 1996? I can assure you, we did.
2. 2.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   > Section 230 doesn't "grant these businesses privileged immunity." Section 230 applies to all persons and all devices connected to the Internet in the United States. This is specious; said blanket immunity is a privileg
3. 3.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   What, exactly, am I wrong about?
4. 4.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   Huh? I’m not remotely confused, but it would seem that you are. Without section 230, companies can carry whatever content they like, but they’re legally liable for it. A common carrier is not responsible for the content they carry, as lon
5. 5.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   > Take away section 230 and now companies can be sued for what they're hosting, and so they will more aggressively start banning people. Not if they operate as a common carrier —- just like how the phone company cannot be sued for c
6. 6.▲
   by teakettle007 6y ago

   Section 230 of the CDA is the government getting in the way of business; granting these businesses privileged immunity such that they can have all the advantages of operating as a common carrier, while actually operating as a publisher. T