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.
So, imo, that's the trick argument they use to keep 230 in existence. It's similar to the Net Neutrality argument where they said that without Net Neutrality protection, the internet would cease to exist.
Think about it. Child porn is illegal, right? Without 230, if someone posts CP, then obviously the host would take it down because it's illegal. If they did not take it down, then without 230 they would be held accountable for hosting it...as they should be.
Now WITH 230, the host is never responsible, so therefore they could let CP stay up and be immune from prosecution. (They don't do this of course, but they could.) But with 230, the host could also censor stuff like "hate speech" and also be immune.
So which of these situations seems more correct to you?
The point isn't that some site could theoretically leave cp up and be fine. The point is that any troll could post cp and, even if it's deleted quickly, the site could be held liable for it, if 230 is repealed.
Without 230, places like the win are publishers, and so responsible for anything published. Without 230, at best, posts are text only, as pics or links would put the place at risk for any bad actor to come along.
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.
So, imo, that's the trick argument they use to keep 230 in existence. It's similar to the Net Neutrality argument where they said that without Net Neutrality protection, the internet would cease to exist.
Think about it. Child porn is illegal, right? Without 230, if someone posts CP, then obviously the host would take it down because it's illegal. If they did not take it down, then without 230 they would be held accountable for hosting it...as they should be.
Now WITH 230, the host is never responsible, so therefore they could let CP stay up and be immune from prosecution. (They don't do this of course, but they could.) But with 230, the host could also censor stuff like "hate speech" and also be immune.
So which of these situations seems more correct to you?
The point isn't that some site could theoretically leave cp up and be fine. The point is that any troll could post cp and, even if it's deleted quickly, the site could be held liable for it, if 230 is repealed.
Without 230, places like the win are publishers, and so responsible for anything published. Without 230, at best, posts are text only, as pics or links would put the place at risk for any bad actor to come along.