| > No, it means less 230 protection for HN. Stop conflating this with destruction of the platform, it's becoming like "net neutrality". Remember when tweaking that killed the internet? Really? If HN starts only moderating based on "identifiable harms (i.e. illicit content, directed threats, terrorism)" then it'll quickly become a cesspool and lose the community. On the other hand, if they continue to apply posting guidelines, how many banned users suing HN over "politically motivated censorship" and shit like that do you think it takes for them to decide it's not worth it? Content removed because someone was an abusive jerk suddenly becomes, in plaintiff's claims, content removed because the moderators didn't like their politics. Now spend your $$$$ to defend against that claim! You're sticking your head into the sand over what the unintended consequences of your proposals would be because you really really really want to believe it would only have the intended consequences that you like. (Look at what you do when you bring up newspapers: newspapers have extremely limited user-generated content, because of the standards you're proposing extending. Again: there goes HN.) The only stuff that would survive would be the stuff with big userbases, big pockets, and the ability to throw a lot of moderating power at stuff. Which all sounds to me more like traditional broadcast media - which is historically claimed to be also unfair to the same conservatives who are making the most noise about this stuff. So... good luck with that. |