| >> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't. >> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. You didn't get cut off if your politics didn't match the phone company's. And if you act as a platform like that on the internet, you could allow the posting of content you haven't checked yet. Platform or publisher, pick one. >> The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of running a community online Not true, there are print communities that publish users' content - people take that risk. >> "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon Dictionary definitions of publish: "to make generally known", "to disseminate to the public". No, "publish" is not a distortion, it's a dictionary definition, you just don't like the consequences of that definition. >> "Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content" Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print. False claim. >> A functional Internet An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia. No. Just no. |
Telephone calls are private; not public. There are two parties. It's literally against the law for other parties to attempt to become privy to those communications under most circumstances (wiretapping).
Please explain how something like HN works on the telephone.
>Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print.
User generated content does indeed exist in print, where the cost of printing and shipping that content are incumbent on the party that wishes to make their opinion known. When unsolicited or tiresome, we refer to this as junk mail or chain-letters.