As it's written and supposed to be enforced, it protects platforms from being responsible for what the people on it say. "The views and opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions and views of us" kind of deal that you hear before a lot of interviews and such. And this is a good thing. If someone came in here and started posting actually illegal stuff, they'd be on the hook, not the win.
As it's being enforced, though, is a very big problem. Places like facebook and twitter are enjoying all the protection of claiming to be platforms, while also exercising editorial privilege and only allowing things that comports to their views and opinions.
In short: nuking it from orbit would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What actually needs to be done is to strip twitter and facebook of their 230 protections, while allowing places that actually allow free speech to continue being open platforms.
I would not support it, but let me explain.
As it's written and supposed to be enforced, it protects platforms from being responsible for what the people on it say. "The views and opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions and views of us" kind of deal that you hear before a lot of interviews and such. And this is a good thing. If someone came in here and started posting actually illegal stuff, they'd be on the hook, not the win.
As it's being enforced, though, is a very big problem. Places like facebook and twitter are enjoying all the protection of claiming to be platforms, while also exercising editorial privilege and only allowing things that comports to their views and opinions.
In short: nuking it from orbit would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What actually needs to be done is to strip twitter and facebook of their 230 protections, while allowing places that actually allow free speech to continue being open platforms.