[jauntywundrkind]

I've linked actual informative useful sources, that bring references.

If you have a case to make, by all means! Make it! I am happy to actually hear some anti-section 230 talk that makes any sense. But this is just cheap digs of no merit, adding no specific or clarity to the conversation.

It's also, from everything anyone of any note has said, totally miserably absurdly wrong.

[readitalready]

You did not link to any actual, informative sources. You linked to typical debunked garbage.

Section 230 is old. You aren't providing any new information I haven't seen over the last 30 years. And, like we predicted, it has destroyed independent media in favor of large corporations, enforcing their corporatist speech.

None of your predictions are true. All of our predictions have come true.

The only thing Section 230 does is enforce corporatist speech by removing liability for large corporations hosting content. It did not stop those same corporations from maintaining editorial controls over speech, thus allowing them to control your speech. Is Facebook/YouTube an internet service like a public utility? Or is it speech content itself with their own editorial controls?

You can't have it both ways.

YouTube just banned Guy Christensen from their platform. Now what?

[hn_acker]

> YouTube just banned Guy Christensen from their platform. Now what?

YouTube has both a First Amendment right and a Section 230 immunity to ban Guy Christensen (to the extent that a government actor/agency does not coerce YouTube into doing so). Now Guy Christensen finds another platform or self-publishes his own speech.

Otherwise, your comment is similar to the one you wrote at [1], and I address it at [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47016230

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026006