[heavyset_go]

> However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

> So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.*

They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

They want to fundamentally shift the liability for user created content online, effectively ensuring that hosting any speech becomes a massive liability for those without billions of dollars comb through user uploads for illegal content.

As a business owner, I don't want to be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night and then go to prison because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to my servers.

[lliamander]

I am not a fan of repealing section 230. I think it'sactuallya pretty inspired piece of law for its time.

But it's original purpose was to remove civil liability for platforms for making an imperfect but good faith attempt to remove illegal content.

The farther we move away from the original motivating case, the less clear it is to me that Internet companies need or deserve the protection afforded to them under the auspices of section 230.

[waterhouse]

Well, Taibbi hasn't mentioned Section 230; I see only two other comments mentioning it. Also, I skimmed an article that says most people don't understand Section 230 (or the context around it—it provides immunity for certain things, and therefore you have to understand "immunity from what?"), so I would hesitate to say too much about it. It's entirely likely that there are some prominent partisans who claim to be in favor of free speech but don't have a principled stance on the subject (e.g. think flag-burning should be illegal), or who are as ignorant as I am on section 230 and less averse to recklessly advocating for political measures they don't understand.

At any rate, as I doubt you'll be surprised to hear, I am also not in favor of business owners getting raided by the FBI because users uploaded illegal content. That sounds like a mechanism for crushing small websites who can't afford their own legal department, thereby protecting large websites against competition.

[stale2002]

> They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

Politicians and citizens have the "right" to change the law.

That's how society works. If those companies don't like it, then they can pack up and move to a different country.