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