Yeah, but it could use some revision to make it more full-proof so that censorship like this never happens again. It's clear that trying to enforce it in its current state isn't working.
I think terminating it is fine. You just give people the option of opting out of the editorializing done by the mods. I.e. all the stuff the mods remove would not be removed but you could make it invisible to your user experience by "opting in" to the curation decisions made by the current mod team members. Same end result but puts the power back in the users.
The result of that would be that TD would be liable for anything users post and would need to pre-screen anything to ensure that it is not risky prior to publishing it.
I dunno what happened to the "public square" argument? Can't we just say that we will free a platform from liability if they don't infringe on people's free speech? I guess the post you link is saying that this would be like another attempt to enforce neutrality but it seems different than neutrality to me. Basically a "platform" would not be liable for things people post but people could sue them for infinging on free speech or something if what they posted was not illegal.
It would not mean that. Removing 230 would harm the small sites more than the huge ones. The huge ones would cement their dominance by making the barriers to entry higher.
Section 230 is what protects the website from the time when the illegal/defamatory content is posted to when it is removed. It is what gives the website operator a reasonable amount of time to police the user-generated content.
Without Section 230, the millisecond illegal or defamatory content hits your servers and starts being shared by your website to other people, you are legally responsible for it.
CP is criminal mainly. Eliminating 230 increases civil liability -- lawsuits. Anything that could be brought to court would be a risk. If it could be claimed to be defamatory, libelous, infringe copyright, identity theft...
Part of me always worries that if 230 is removed people will come after the Donald.win eventually. We are always a target.
Terminating 230 is not the answer, it needs to be reformed. You are right in my opinion
Yeah, but it could use some revision to make it more full-proof so that censorship like this never happens again. It's clear that trying to enforce it in its current state isn't working.
Right, we just need to get these companies to officially declare they're a platform or a publisher and enforce the law accordingly.
Trump demanding termination is part of his negotiating, he's trying to get them to agree to reform or he'll go scorched Earth on it.
Making a request which would hoist yourself by your own petard is not a usual bargaining tactic.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, solutions.
I think terminating it is fine. You just give people the option of opting out of the editorializing done by the mods. I.e. all the stuff the mods remove would not be removed but you could make it invisible to your user experience by "opting in" to the curation decisions made by the current mod team members. Same end result but puts the power back in the users.
The result of that would be that TD would be liable for anything users post and would need to pre-screen anything to ensure that it is not risky prior to publishing it.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, solutions.
I dunno what happened to the "public square" argument? Can't we just say that we will free a platform from liability if they don't infringe on people's free speech? I guess the post you link is saying that this would be like another attempt to enforce neutrality but it seems different than neutrality to me. Basically a "platform" would not be liable for things people post but people could sue them for infinging on free speech or something if what they posted was not illegal.
Trump is a "repeal and replace" kind of guy.
He's doing it to Obamacare. He doesn't want any crumbs left behind that savages can eat up and take advantage of.
They won't. They have AI tools and lawyers. They'll just use the AI to mass remove stuff and the lawyers to stay free of legal penalties.
Meanwhile every other website will drown in lawsuits trying to be a platform without 230 protection.
then their product will be dead, congratulations
THIS IS HOW THEY ALREADY OPERATE AND ARE NOT DEAD!!!
USE YOUR GODDAM BRAIN!!!
It would not mean that. Removing 230 would harm the small sites more than the huge ones. The huge ones would cement their dominance by making the barriers to entry higher.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, solutions.
There are already laws against CP long before Section 230. Even without it, we could remove CP with ease.
But I sorta get what you're saying. Our website moderators would still want to remove other BS troll topics that would flood here.
I think there's an easy happy medium where website mods can curate without censoring.
Section 230 is what protects the website from the time when the illegal/defamatory content is posted to when it is removed. It is what gives the website operator a reasonable amount of time to police the user-generated content.
Without Section 230, the millisecond illegal or defamatory content hits your servers and starts being shared by your website to other people, you are legally responsible for it.
CP is criminal mainly. Eliminating 230 increases civil liability -- lawsuits. Anything that could be brought to court would be a risk. If it could be claimed to be defamatory, libelous, infringe copyright, identity theft...
Yeah it's a concern, but what's actually going to happen? Biden is going to sue because anon2375 called him a loser on the internet?
The courts have gone nuts, but I can't see them siding with this.
Eliminating only section 230 would be horrible for us and citizens in general.
Section 230 Safe Harbor summary. Recent past, actions, solutions.