| Yes, that's the point of 230. It doesn't make anything legal that wasn't before, or illegal that was legal before. It simply assigns the responsibility of illegal content to the party that created it. Which is just a reasonable application of common sense. I simply do not understand the motives behind people who want to abolish 230 - they would turn the internet into a stark split between heavily moderated websites, looking out only for their own liability because should they lay a finger on anything, they are culpable for everything - and unmoderated hellholes. Maybe they enjoy the hellholes and want more sites like that? Misery loves company. I suspect most of the posters arguing against 230 are: * Uninformed about what the law actually does * Purposefully antagonistic and contrarian, or part of a coordinated troll campaign to sow discord * Folks who have a bone to pick with big tech and will support any law, no matter how ridiculous, thinking it would cause big companies grief * Spiteful that their post got moderated off a popular platform, and want websites to be forced to broadcast their content (despite this being a clear 1A violation of the company's rights) * Really, truly, think that sites on the Internet should be either a wasteland or approval-only-posting, and you have to pick one In any case, this kind of discussion around 230 is kind of burying the lede of the EARN IT act, which is a desperate attempt at not only further eroding 230 protections after the monstrosities of FOSTA/SESTA, but to allow the government to take away these common sense protections from a site unless they capitulate to government spying. Which really should be the focus here, but somehow we're all distracted in the comments dismantling the faulty "platform or publisher, pick one!" argument again. |