[NE2z2T9qi]

This doesn’t seem that complicated to me. What’s all the I-am-smarter-than-you smugness about?

> Law text: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher.”

People who want Section 230 repealed or modified want to be able to make the legal argument that by actively banning certain speech while elevating other speech, social media companies ARE acting as publishers. The law doesn’t need to define publisher again. We already have an understanding of what publishers do: they selectively choose and publicize OTHER people’s content.

What am I missing? Whether or not it’s justified, the reason some people want it repealed seem obvious to me.

[post_below]

The reasons are obvious but the outcome is the important thing. Largely the sentiments behind wanting to repeal section 230 seem to be about the big platforms.

The point that often gets missed is that without 230 ONLY the big platforms could afford to exist (and probably not even them in their current form).

So while the goal to limit the power of the tech giants may be good, the proposed method will likely accomplish the opposite by removing all competition present and future.

You may be aware of this, if so consider this post to be for someone who isn't.

[thewindowmovie5]

I was not aware of this point of view. I agree, new regulations will just help existing big player and new player will continue to be squeezed out.

[h_anna_h]

What about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698184 then?

[jojobas]

The outcome of the current situation is clear: people's minds are influenced by unchecked, politically slanted, big corporate entities under a guise of social interaction.

I struggle to see how additional measures aimed at said entities (which is the kind of amendment typically sought) would remove competition.

[post_below]

Yes, aim measures at said entities, I support that idea.

Repealing section 230 is not that.

[amanaplanacanal]

Perhaps we can keep 230, but add a sentence that it no longer applies once you reach a certain number of users. So the small guys are protected, but not the biggest players.

Or perhaps you lose the protection if you show advertising on your site.

Or perhaps make it so that it only applies to nonprofits.

[jojobas]

It's not really enough.

Twitter has political power well above any 20th century legislature could imagine, all at the fingertips of it's owners.

It's 20th century equivalent would be "members of political party X may not hear each other in bars".

I can't see how anyone could consider this "fair", even if this is just a side effect of silencing accounts that aren't ad-friendly.

[zerocrates]

The snark isn't directed so much at people who want repeal (though techdirt pretty clearly would disagree with them on that point also) but rather at the very large contingent of people who express with total conviction that the law right now draws lines between neutral "platforms" who are protected and biased "publishers" who are not, when the law in fact does the exact opposite.

[NE2z2T9qi]

> when the law in fact does the exact opposite

Yes. That’s exactly the problem people who want it repealed are pointing out: the current law offers broad blanket protection to social media companies to moderate content however they want, even if their moderation practices are highly editorial and partisan, akin to traditional publishers.

Techdirt seems to think people don’t understand that the law doesn’t distinguish between platforms and publishers. On the contrary, that’s precisely why people want it repealed or modified. Either attach platform “neutrality” requirements to these broad protections, or eliminate the protections and allow social media companies to be subject to the old legal regime attached to publishers.

[zerocrates]

There are an enormous number of people who say things like, "by doing X, Twitter (replace as needed) is no longer a platform and loses its protection."

Not in the sense of, that's how it ought to be or that a change in the law will bring it about, but under a belief that that's how things already are.

The balance has shifted a bit as calls for its repeal have become louder, so "repeal 230" is now a much more common response to disliked moderation actions, but you still don't have to look far to find people saying that a ban or notice or whatever "violates section 230."

[michaelmrose]

I don't want offensive or hateful people to have free reign on Twitter and Facebook indeed most don't.

[depressedpanda]

Sure, but are you comfortable with the effect that private companies with greater political reach than many nation states can arbitrarily censor speech and push their own politics?

I'm not, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or censorship.