[heavyset_go]

> I don't think it would be world ending to get rid of Section 230

If you're running a start up, how would you feel knowing that if a user uploaded illegal content to your servers, you could be raided in the middle of the night and imprisoned for it?

Only those with billions of dollars to throw at moderation would be able to comply with the law. Everyone else would need to block user content by necessity, or risk having their lives ruined by malicious users.

The net result is that hosting free speech on the internet would be too risky for anyone other than giant corporations. The liability to host users' speech would be far too high for anyone else.

[vharuck]

Definitely. If 230 gets repealed, and somebody who had a forum wants to keep running it, they might consult a lawyer for advice. And that lawyer would say, "Don't allow user-created content. It's not worth the risk."

It only makes sense if the user content is the profit-generator and the forum owner ran the numbers and expects to still be profitable even after lawsuits.

So no more hobby forums, YouTube comments (some are good), or internet access in libraries:

>Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal. App. 4th 684, 692 (2001).[136] The California Court of Appeal upheld the immunity of a city from claims of waste of public funds, nuisance, premises liability, and denial of substantive due process. The plaintiff's child downloaded pornography from a public library's computers, which did not restrict access to minors. The court found the library was not responsible for the content of the internet and explicitly found that section 230(c)(1) immunity covers governmental entities and taxpayer causes of action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230