[snuxoll]

I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online platforms.

This is a open and shut first amendment case.

[throwawaygh]

> This is a open and shut first amendment case.

Yes, it is, but the outcome would be the opposite of what you expect.

constitutionally, private corporations can't be censored or compelled to speak when the speech is 1A protected speech.

but not all speech receives 1A protections, and Section 230 is about the type of speech that isn't protected by 1A. E.g., without 230, corporations could be sued for users' libel or held criminally liable for helping distribute lots of different types of speech (e.g., making terroristic threats, distributing child porn, facilitating illegal acts, etc.).

So, a case that hinges on 230 protections would be open-and-shut if 230 were repealed. Just with the opposite outcome of the one you're expecting.

[hiram112]

Not even close to open and shut.

You realize that an editorial posted on the NYTimes or Fox News site can get them sued for libel or defamation, right? This does, in fact, happen all the time. Read about several of the left leaning cable networks and their lawsuit with the 'Covington Kids'. They are a publisher, and are responsible for their content.

Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. acted like platforms for many years, same as the telecoms, and nobody ever complained. Look at how much influence and cash they have. What could possibly cause them to risk this gold mine?

Donald Trump became president, and the liberal companies and employees in Silicon Valley / West Coast lost their nerve and resorted to censorship, decided to use their 'platforms' as their own private political tools.

Oops...

Now they can enjoy the same restrictions that other publishers have always had to deal with. Hopefully their shareholders realize the source of the issue, and boot the activist executives and employees, as it's now going to cost them a lot of money, all of which they brought on themselves.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-l...

[throwawaygh]

> as it's now going to cost them a lot of money

As one of those shareholders, from a purely profit-motive, I'm not so sure that replacing 230 with something more onerous would be a net negative.

Moats are expensive, but also valuable.

[vangelis]

Should I be able to sue YC when Hackernews commenters say something objectionable? That Paul G money sounds nice.