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.
Re-interpreting 230 to require free-speech would also make TD and other advocacy sites impossible. For example, TD infringes upon the expression of Biden supporters, trolls, and people who want to put content on TD that makes TD look bad.
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.
Removing 230 would not create that.
Re-interpreting 230 to require free-speech would also make TD and other advocacy sites impossible. For example, TD infringes upon the expression of Biden supporters, trolls, and people who want to put content on TD that makes TD look bad.