I don’t want section 230 to disappear completely, it is generally a good thing. Big tech companies are clearly publishers and shouldn’t get the benefits of section 230...
I think getting rid of 230 is a bit chaotic in the short term, but in the long run it allows new paradigms of publishing to appear - the ones where it is you who publish, store, and control content. Remember how in 1990's there were personal homepages. It could evolve into something that looks like we are used to today, i.e. the comments are integrated as if there was a central site that hosts all of them, but technically it is you who host your comments, and so they can't be censored or removed. Kind of like in early 2000's RSS readers were popular, and google reader was your google news. It is the change that happened later, when these giant sites appeared, but maybe it doesn't have to look this way for true, technology-guaranteed freedom of speech to exist. Maybe we should not want censorship-free twitter or see parler as better twitter - until they grow big and start censoring. Maybe big, centralized website is not the real answer.
Other argument for getting rid of 230: de facto, all these platforms behave like publishers today anyway, so why not set things straight and declare them who they are. With 230 in place today, they can hide behind platform protections, but enjoy the benefits of publisher control, so f it.
Even if the "world" (haha, the world of twitter and facebook) has to burn, maybe we should stop seeing it as catastrophe, and get more energy to take care of the real world, and stop clinging to these fake unimportant things that look like they are a lot, but in reality it is us who make facebooks of the world such critical meaning and make them important.
So, see what happens now - facebooks are under a threat, and our first instinct is to protect them, the status quo, the convenience of having them around. We hope that it is possible to make them behave in accordance with the 1st Amendment, we have a dream of an ideal facebook. But in 1776 there was no facebook and it was possible to speak and communicate.
GENIUS
Could this be Bye bye Section 230...
I don’t want section 230 to disappear completely, it is generally a good thing. Big tech companies are clearly publishers and shouldn’t get the benefits of section 230...
I think getting rid of 230 is a bit chaotic in the short term, but in the long run it allows new paradigms of publishing to appear - the ones where it is you who publish, store, and control content. Remember how in 1990's there were personal homepages. It could evolve into something that looks like we are used to today, i.e. the comments are integrated as if there was a central site that hosts all of them, but technically it is you who host your comments, and so they can't be censored or removed. Kind of like in early 2000's RSS readers were popular, and google reader was your google news. It is the change that happened later, when these giant sites appeared, but maybe it doesn't have to look this way for true, technology-guaranteed freedom of speech to exist. Maybe we should not want censorship-free twitter or see parler as better twitter - until they grow big and start censoring. Maybe big, centralized website is not the real answer. Other argument for getting rid of 230: de facto, all these platforms behave like publishers today anyway, so why not set things straight and declare them who they are. With 230 in place today, they can hide behind platform protections, but enjoy the benefits of publisher control, so f it. Even if the "world" (haha, the world of twitter and facebook) has to burn, maybe we should stop seeing it as catastrophe, and get more energy to take care of the real world, and stop clinging to these fake unimportant things that look like they are a lot, but in reality it is us who make facebooks of the world such critical meaning and make them important. So, see what happens now - facebooks are under a threat, and our first instinct is to protect them, the status quo, the convenience of having them around. We hope that it is possible to make them behave in accordance with the 1st Amendment, we have a dream of an ideal facebook. But in 1776 there was no facebook and it was possible to speak and communicate.