[ETH_start]

Abolishing 230 means no free speech, anywhere. Speech would need to be restrained, vetted, and approved by a platform, before it could be shared.

While much abusive speech can be blocked from being published with this sort of Prior Restraint, much more healthy, vital speech — that counters abuse — would be repressed by it, IMHO. See how litigation involving copyright law has been used by the Church of Scientology to silence critics, for example. The removal of 230 means platforms themselves could be targeted to efficiently censor large sections of the population.

And the basic principle of Prior Restraint flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that underlies conduct in a Free Society.

[fc417fc802]

That's not true. It would stifle centralized platforms but it would not meaningfully impact those self hosting. So ActivityPub (ie self hosted Mastodon and similar) would be unaffected as would Bluesky with a self hosted PDS (IIUC). Further, paid hosting services for those would be unaffected for the same reason that we don't require section 230 to protect the car rental company if someone uses the vehicle to commit a crime.

I'm not advocating to repeal section 230 but honestly all I'm seeing here is upsides.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> That's not true. It would stifle centralized platforms but it would not meaningfully impact those self hosting.

IDK why you think this. 230 is brief; it doesn't distinguish between size of internet entities. It protects every site that hosts a comment section from bad-faith lawsuits by deep pockets who don't like that speech.

That's all it does. It doesn't provide cover for illegal activity or any of the other 1k things it gets accused of.

[fc417fc802]

I think we're in agreement? I'm not clear how what you wrote is at odds with what I said.

[WarOnPrivacy]

You indicated different outcomes for centralized platforms and self hosters and that the latter would be fine - did you not?

If so, removing 230 would bring the greatest harms to the smallest (aka largest number of) sites.

[fc417fc802]

I don't think so. Section 230 only applies if you host other's content. If you are self hosting only your own content then it does not apply to you.

In case we have a misunderstanding, I wasn't describing the current common practice of rather large multi-user AP nodes. Rather I had in mind the idea of each user hosting his own instance, or at most perhaps exceedingly small multi-user instances for immediate family or a hobbyist group or similar. Those are all situations where section 230 currently offers approximately zero benefit to the operator as I understand it.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I don't think so. Section 230 only applies if you host other's content.

230 protects every site with a comment section (from SLAPP, etc suits). That includes a lot of blogs, inc self-hosted.

[krapp]

>So ActivityPub (ie self hosted Mastodon and similar) would be unaffected as would Bluesky with a self hosted PDS (IIUC).

Only as long as you don't allow third party comments or run a multi-user instance. Then you're just as legally liable for that content as the centralized platforms.

>Further, paid hosting services for those would be unaffected for the same reason that we don't require section 230 to protect the car rental company if someone uses the vehicle to commit a crime.

Mixed metaphors aside, Section 230 is the law that "protects the car rental company if someone uses the vehicle to commit a crime."

If the car rental company is the platform, then prior to Section 230 (and after its repeal) they were and would be held responsible.

Section 230 just establishes that the party posting content is liable for that content, just as the person using a vehicle to commit a crime is responsible for that crime.

[fc417fc802]

> Only as long as you don't [ do various things that no longer qualify as self hosting ].

Well yeah, that was exactly my point.

> Mixed metaphors aside

It wasn't a metaphor, I meant that quite literally. If you rent a car there is no section 230 protection and yet the company is not liable unless they knowingly aid you in committing a crime. Network service offerings aren't magically different. Selling something (in a sufficiently neutral manner) does not generally leave you with any liability for the customer's actions.

It's only when you start operating your own service that republishes user submitted content that section 230 suddenly becomes relevant (at least AFAIK). If you want an analogy I guess it would be like offering free use of your fleet of vehicles to strangers off the street with zero due diligence and then the law exempting you from liability for any subsequent actions of those strangers.

Anyway I'm not advocating to repeal it. Personally I think the issue is that social media operators editorialize via algorithm, abusing section 230 to dodge responsibility.