[hiram112]

> Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason?

That's a perfectly fine stance, and it has worked well for traditional publishers like the NY Times and Washington Post for decades. They control all their content, and publish exactly the narrative they want. OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them. See for example the Covington Kid[1].

Facebook and Google want to have their cake and eat it too. They want free rein to pretend like they're just aggregating content, but this election shows that they are definitely using both AI and humans to control what's published. So why should they enjoy all the rights of both a "tech platform" and also a traditional publisher, with none of the responsibilities and liabilities?

Section 230 was crafted explicitly for tech. It can be modified or removed, too.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=covington+kid+lawsuit

[joshuamorton]

Well no, the entire point of 230 was to allow content aggregators to actively moderate content.

As I see it, there are three options:

1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.

2. What we have now (sites can moderate as they see fit)

3. Some external board adjudicates on what it is acceptable to moderate

Of these, 3 seems by far the worst, and 2 seems better than 1 on empirical grounds.

> OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them.

You also have the legal right to sue Google if they publish content that slanders you. You can even sue them for doxxing you. You wouldn't win either one. Nor would you win if you sued the NYT for doxxing you, or if an NYT article caused you to lose your job. Keep in mind that "the covington kid" didn't actually win any lawsuits, he sued a bunch of people for ridiculous amounts and settled out of court for, likely, a relatively trivial sum. It might have paid for his college, and that was mostly "make it go away" money. He's the free speech equivalent of a patent troll.

[srtjstjsj]

> 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.

Pre 230, platforms were liable regardless of whether they moderated.

[joshuamorton]

That's incorrect. A platform that choose not to moderate anything was not liable for anything.

[rhizome]

Neither the NYT nor WaPo publish UGC, which is a nuance (the nuance, perhaps) that necessitates a middle ground and a recognition that the dish in play is not cake at all.

I didn't like 230 at the time, and frankly we wouldn't be having so many (IF ANY) Facebook headaches over the past 10 years if it had never been born. FB et al didn't want to choose between editorial and common carrier status and the government acceeded to that whine. 230 is what we got, and now we find that 230-protected companies want to exercise editorial control. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but reversing to the common carrier distinction ain't gonna be it.