posted ago by Waco419
+21 / -1
Repealing 230 is a terrible idea! Without 230, alt-tech social media platforms will get destroyed by litigation. The big guys will survive and even thrive without 230. That’s why the big guys WANT 230 gone - to enable them to kill the conservative and edgy competition.
We need to strengthen 230 to additionally make excessive content curation (anything beyond removal of actual illegal content) a crime.
Best explanation: https://youtu.be/kWhF7pqAAxg
Not up to us.
FB,Twitter, and YT are not alt tech. Alt tech is not abridging peoples rights.
What is your solution to what FB, Twitter, and Youtube is doing then?
All i see is you saying "no"
Like I said, update 230 to make censorship a crime.
Or know that violating 1a already is a crime and countless "hearings" haven't done jack shit.
Repeal is fine as long as its replaced.
Leave nothing in the old statute, in case some turd finds a loophole again.
Point well taken make the government in force 230 the way it was written.
So keep censorship?
Also get a better source dude
Not without consequences. If a social media company censors content (this makes them a publisher), then the government should remove 230 protection for THAT company (opening them to litigation).
230 protects platforms that do not (or cannot) censor. These companies are PLATFORMS. They are typically small, alt-tech sites.
230 protection needs to be rescinded for companies that DO censor. These companies are PUBLISHERS. You know who they are.
But, because of AI and the high cost of litigation, the punitive removal of 230 protection from a censoring company would probably not be a real problem for them (because they're so big and flush with cash).
Removing 230 protection for ALL companies would only hurt small companies that don't have the technical capability to prevent users from posting illegal content. This would result in them being sued out of business or forced to sell out to a bigger company.
Edit: Overall, I think Styx does a pretty good job of political analysis. On this issue in particular, I think he makes things particularly clear.
Ahhh that's different. Definitely remove 230 protections for publishers such as the c*nts that place a little disclaimer on all of The President's communications.
I thought styx was saying 'don't remove 230 protections for anyone'