|
|
|
|
|
|
by ekrebs
1985 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t understand this new fascination with gutting 230. 230 protects the speech of the users, since the platform isn’t held responsible for what they say. Make YouTube liable for its users content, and now the whole system is moderated to remove any polarizing content. This means politicians like Trump will NEVER have a platform for their message. Why would they intentionally vote to de-amplify their own voices? |
|
|
But that's not the really bad part.
Section 230 means that you can't be sued for something I say.
But it doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter. It applies to HN. It applies to Github repos and Discord channels and every person and device connected to the Internet in the US.
Get rid of Section 230 and then you can be sued for what other people say.
Which would pretty much kill all but the biggest platforms, because only they could afford the liability.
Section 230 has been protecting free speech on the Internet for 25 years. We should keep doing that.
See here[0] for more details. The title is snarky, but it has lots of good information.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...