I know no one wants to hear this, but we are going to have to voluntarily leave all of these platforms en masse, as a group. Millions of us saying fuck it and pulling the plug. It's hard, I'm not gonna lie. There isn't one place that everyone has migrated to yet - it's a total mess. The only way out is to STOP PLAYING THE GAME.
They won't though, that's the problem. They'll just turn their algorithms up to 11 and send an army of lawyers to any lawsuit that does come their way.
The problem with Section 230 is that the protection it provides is unconditional - it simply defines platforms like YouTube as never being the publisher of content uploaded by their users. If it could be amended such that acting as a publisher would make them liable then it would give platforms that don't do this a competitive advantage.
Yeah well, just because they aren't legally treated as a publisher doesn't mean the privately owned infrastructure they rely on can't fuck them, nor does it mean they can't be forced to take something down.
But yes, as far as Section 230 is concerned no amount of editorializing turns them into a publisher of content not produced by them, so the publisher v platform argument can't be enforced as things stand.
Fully terminating Section 230 would be a disaster. It needs to be reformed and strongly enforced.
I know no one wants to hear this, but we are going to have to voluntarily leave all of these platforms en masse, as a group. Millions of us saying fuck it and pulling the plug. It's hard, I'm not gonna lie. There isn't one place that everyone has migrated to yet - it's a total mess. The only way out is to STOP PLAYING THE GAME.
Nah. Kill it with fire. Let the big guys feel the heat.
They won't though, that's the problem. They'll just turn their algorithms up to 11 and send an army of lawyers to any lawsuit that does come their way.
The problem with Section 230 is that the protection it provides is unconditional - it simply defines platforms like YouTube as never being the publisher of content uploaded by their users. If it could be amended such that acting as a publisher would make them liable then it would give platforms that don't do this a competitive advantage.
It doesn't matter. There's more of us than them. We're in an age of distrobution not centralization. There's always somewhere else to organize.
They on the other hand rely entirely on the Network Effect and a belief in their "authority". One is in more danger than the other and it is us.
Unconditional, huh? How'd that go for 8chan?
Yeah well, just because they aren't legally treated as a publisher doesn't mean the privately owned infrastructure they rely on can't fuck them, nor does it mean they can't be forced to take something down.
But yes, as far as Section 230 is concerned no amount of editorializing turns them into a publisher of content not produced by them, so the publisher v platform argument can't be enforced as things stand.