[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.