I wish ya'll could understand that without 230 this site would not exist. 230 repeal is the wrong solution. Anti-trust actions against big tech is the right solution. Anyone who has read and understood 230 would agree. Repealing 230 would strengthen big tech and wipe out the little guys.
You don't understand the context of Section 230. At all.
If the gas station puts up a sign in their bathroom that says "Comment Here" then they are liable for the content under decency laws but not Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Phone and FAX are person-person communication and Section 230 does not apply.
Section 230 applies only to interactive computer services.
Both of your examples expose a complete lack of understanding about what 230 is. That circles back to my original comment that I wish ya'll could understand...
Read https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 first. Fully understand it in the context of the Communications Decency Act. Then you will be ready to debate this topic.
I wish ya'll could understand that without 230 this site would not exist. 230 repeal is the wrong solution. Anti-trust actions against big tech is the right solution. Anyone who has read and understood 230 would agree. Repealing 230 would strengthen big tech and wipe out the little guys.
The protections would still apply to true platforms.
That is a spin like the “Net Neutrality” spin they tried to push.
You must be talking about an amendment because a repeal would not leave any protection in place.
If I write a message on the bathroom wall at a gas station, the gas station is not responsible.
If the gas station paints over all messages except for the isis calls to allahuakbar the infidels, then they are liable.
Funny how the phone company doesnt need section 230. Or the fax machine industry.
You don't understand the context of Section 230. At all.
If the gas station puts up a sign in their bathroom that says "Comment Here" then they are liable for the content under decency laws but not Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Phone and FAX are person-person communication and Section 230 does not apply.
Section 230 applies only to interactive computer services.
Both of your examples expose a complete lack of understanding about what 230 is. That circles back to my original comment that I wish ya'll could understand...
Read https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 first. Fully understand it in the context of the Communications Decency Act. Then you will be ready to debate this topic.