The bill protects everyone, even us, from stuff posted to your site's servers.
Before 230: random dude posts cp on your site, YOU are in trouble.
After 230: random dude posts cp on your site, you're protected.
So the idea was to protect you and giving you the chance to delete illegal things from your site without getting in trouble at all, but they wrote it in such a way that allowed them to also delete "otherwise questionable content", which they've taken it upon themselves to mean "we'll remove anything we don't like, even presidential tweets".
Eliminating it entirely will destroy all social media, but at this point, it's for the better because it will destroy big tech in the process (this move would be the equivalent of going full scorched earth against them).
(pd: that said, I'm not sure if text-only speech is allowed without 230. if it was, we wouldn't have to take this site down)
(pd2: the better move would be to reform it, but traitors in congress are completely bought by big tech, or to have the FCC clarify it, but Ajit Pai is pozzed too, he pulled an AG BARR on us saying he'll do it and then didn't do jack shit)
it's for the better because it will destroy big tech in the process (this move would be the equivalent of going full scorched earth against them).
Want to bet this won't affect them one bit ? They already have the best tools in the world at their disposal . They will not let anything questionable on their sites.
The only ones who will be affected by the complete removal will be the smaller sites. Who don't have either the money or the legal teams to fight any of this.
The solution isn't complete removal. Just modify it so that if they censor legal content ... they loose their protection.
The bill protects everyone, even us, from stuff posted to your site's servers.
So the idea was to protect you and giving you the chance to delete illegal things from your site without getting in trouble at all, but they wrote it in such a way that allowed them to also delete "otherwise questionable content", which they've taken it upon themselves to mean "we'll remove anything we don't like, even presidential tweets".
Eliminating it entirely will destroy all social media, but at this point, it's for the better because it will destroy big tech in the process (this move would be the equivalent of going full scorched earth against them).
(pd: that said, I'm not sure if text-only speech is allowed without 230. if it was, we wouldn't have to take this site down)
(pd2: the better move would be to reform it, but traitors in congress are completely bought by big tech, or to have the FCC clarify it, but Ajit Pai is pozzed too, he pulled an AG BARR on us saying he'll do it and then didn't do jack shit)
Are we putting warnings on posts? Do we have clear rules and expectations and hold all people who join to the same rules?
If so, it wouldn't apply to us.
Draw me a picture of how that works exactly.
Want to bet this won't affect them one bit ? They already have the best tools in the world at their disposal . They will not let anything questionable on their sites.
The only ones who will be affected by the complete removal will be the smaller sites. Who don't have either the money or the legal teams to fight any of this.
The solution isn't complete removal. Just modify it so that if they censor legal content ... they loose their protection.
Usenet existed before 230