[supriyo-biswas]

While it is correct that large tech companies are benefited by Section 230, there can be things that mutually benefit both users and companies; and making companies liable for UGC would only have the effect of making it another form of cable TV where a select handful of people get to make content for the rest of us to consume. It is definitely a far cry from the democratization of content generation that we have today, where a nobody could make content and have a realistic chance of becoming recognized widely.

The articles posted on HN discussing this very topic bring this up, so reading them is worthwhile instead of simply dismissing the entire thing as “big tech bad.”

[ocdtrekkie]

I am actually incredibly widely versed in the Section 230 discourse. Literally all of the sources trace back to Google-funded "authorities", which can't back their argument with any meaningful legal concepts.

The entire pitch for 230 is a wild astroturf project. And as a recent non-American pointed out, it's paper thin when you realize no other country has an equivalent immunity law, and all of them allow user generated content.

A comedic example is the claim I've seen that Mastodon servers can't survive without Section 230, but the largest one is in Germany, where no such blanket immunity exists.

[ryukafalz]

I mean, having intermediary liability (as you would absent section 230) doesn't mean you're immediately forced to shut down. Prodigy had been around for just over 10 years before the Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ruling, after all.

It does however mean that if you do get sued over third party content on your site, you will probably lose, which is an expensive possibility for any small site operator.

[ocdtrekkie]

That's a huge assumption based on a single extremely ancient case, that completely flies in the face of any reasonable application of the law.

[nonethewiser]

They're already acting as publishers though. Might as well strip the immunity based on them not being publishers.

[tzs]

Whether or not an entity is a publisher is irrelevant to section 230.