[MisterBastahrd]

So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.

[matthewmarkus]

No.

There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc%...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

[MisterBastahrd]

Yes.

There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.

[matthewmarkus]

Let's say I post the following on a forum:

"X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.)

The nuance is as follows:

A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation.

The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order.

B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation.

The website is making an effort to determine the truthfulness of content. As such, letting a defamatory post go through subjects the website to liability.

C) Under CDA 230.

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

Option C is the worst. It is akin to letting an oil company pick and choose which spills are worth cleaning up. Websites can remove things they think are defamatory to certain people and leave up other things that are defamatory to others with no repercussions.

Ideally, we would live in a world governed by A and B. In that world, sites could choose between moderation and no moderation and the corresponding legal and financial burdens. What we have right now is a mess that works to the advantage of Big Tech.

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

[MisterBastahrd]

There's a zero percent chance that a company like Youtube would allow its content to go completely unmoderated. It has to moderate its content. It has advertisers who are associated with content and it has to keep on the right side of copyright law. Also, no website operator wants the hassle of dealing with court orders because posters are engaging in verbal slapfights online. Your proposal of A would have an EXTREME chilling effect on speech.

Because Youtube exists in the real world, and because earning money through ads is a hell of a lot better for business than trying to get people to pay for content, C is always the best option for them and for every other content provider AND virtually all small and independent content producers.

Otherwise, companies like Youtube would be forced to gate entrance to supplying content by charging hosting fees for content. You are seeing the tree and missing the rest of the forest.

[matthewmarkus]

A few notes:

1.) A and B are not my proposals; They're case law that has been preempted by C.

2.) Copyright falls under the DMCA, which pretty much follows A's procedures (i.e., a takedown notice model) even though the DMCA is a statutory provision. Why are copyright holders so special?

3.) There is no constitutional right to an ad-based business model. Ad-based models evolved under rules similar to B's, but for newspapers, and B is what should govern said models online (unless someone can demonstrate a successful ad-based model under A).

4.) CDA 230 is the golden goose; hence, it won't be repealed. Everyone gets paid to the detriment of society and the individuals who are denied their day in court.