[TameAntelope]

I did read my citation. Ice cream trucks also don't have CDA 230 protection. What's your point? YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses, pretending otherwise is a waste of time, and further indulging your "This windmill is a dragon!" delusion.

This is a temper tantrum, and will never pass legislative or judicial muster. Enjoy YouTube, because its kind of site is sticking around forever.

This reminds me of a temper tantrum someone else threw on Twitter, claiming to leave the platform for an "a censorship-resistant technology: RSS". Did HN suddenly become exclusively based on RSS? No? Interesting. It's almost as if this is a post-hoc argument concocted to try and justify a childish fit.

Edit: You also shared propaganda on your Twitter feed about Hunter Biden's laptop, so it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie. Yet again, another conservative cries foul when an institution doesn't support his ideas.

I'm done here, I only engage with adults, which you clearly are not.

[matthewmarkus]

YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses BECAUSE of CDA 230.

You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA 230 is ever repealed, YouTube will have to change as its business model is not protected by the 1st Amendment but by an act of Congress.

Ad hominem arguments are ignored.

[TameAntelope]

Not an ad hominem. Your argument is bad because you don't support it with anything other than blind assertions. You also are clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which makes your selection of facts, should you choose to bring any facts to this discussion, suspect.

[matthewmarkus]

"But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections."

— Your source, not mine (not that matters).

Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.

[TameAntelope]

Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that.

At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so then anyone reading this will have to guess at why, other than rationality, would you want YouTube, Twitter, and HN to cease to exist.

Your Twitter account, in your profile, should give anyone reading this all the information they need to understand your bias.

[matthewmarkus]

You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230."

One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities:

"Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]

That absolution is ridiculous.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...

[TameAntelope]

So you admit you lied in your prior quote of me?

And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising.

Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.