|
|
|
|
|
|
by readitalready
126 days ago
|
|
|
Correct. Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less. We will have lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls instead of monopolistic corporations that enforce their own viewpoint. The only thing section 230 did was protect large corporations. It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed. |
|
|
This can already happen right now. Nothing about Section 230 hinders or prevents people who would make the hypothetical "lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls" from making them while Section 230 continues to exist as is.
> Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less.
You have not tried to refute most of the claims I made in my previous replies. Of the claims you do attempt to refute (e.g. whether removing Section 230 will result in less speech), I feel that you are missing steps in the chain of consequences.
> It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.
As I stated elsewhere, 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).