No that's a misdirection. 230 needs to be abolished completely. Stripping 230 from "publishers" just means they can skirt the definition of publishers and still operate with full protection.
The whole idea of publisher/not publisher is a ruse actually.
Everyone needs to go read 230 themselves. It flat out states that no content host can ever be sued for anything, and they have full discretion on what they can censor as long as they can argue it as "objectionable".
If 230 is abolished, this very site can be sued and destroyed if some random new account decides to post child porn. 230 needs to be properly enforced, not abolished.
Maybe, still a good idea to remove 230 from big tech publishers
No that's a misdirection. 230 needs to be abolished completely. Stripping 230 from "publishers" just means they can skirt the definition of publishers and still operate with full protection.
The whole idea of publisher/not publisher is a ruse actually.
Everyone needs to go read 230 themselves. It flat out states that no content host can ever be sued for anything, and they have full discretion on what they can censor as long as they can argue it as "objectionable".
If 230 is abolished, this very site can be sued and destroyed if some random new account decides to post child porn. 230 needs to be properly enforced, not abolished.