[joshuamorton]

> Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation.

Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.

[guscost]

> deny people their civil liberties

Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?

Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak?

I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.

[joshuamorton]

> Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?

I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.

Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.

Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.

[guscost]

> I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.

The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws. That’s the controversial part, Facebook enjoys both the rights (plus consequences), and a special immunity under Section 230 that does not apply to any other kind of speech.

> And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.

Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020?

> Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine.

I’m sure lawmakers are hearing this exact line from lobbyists, but it rings hollow. One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.

[joshuamorton]

> Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020?

It does not affect their civil liberties, no.

> One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.

Section 230 does. And repealing it would harm them.

> The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws.

Correct. And if we were discussing writing section 230, that would be valid. But we aren't. We're discussing changing established law. And if the reason to change the law is to restrict civil liberties that at protected by the first amendment, you encounter a constitutional problem.

Much as some laws are unconstitutional to enforce, I simply argue that some are unconstitutional to ignore.

If you want to imagine the negative impacts of such a change, a forum on baking could no longer remove content that was not related to baking without being liable for content posted by users.

As far as I know, the owner of a physical bulletin board isn't responsible if I post a libelous poster on it. Why should a virtual bulletin board be any different?