36
Comments (12)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
N3verCl3ver [S] 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yeah, to me it's not about 230 either, it's about saying Fuckbook and Twatter are publishers. I did see that proposal and it's an interesting tie into the existing law. Why sensor anything if it doesn't break law already created by elected representatives...

3
habadashery2 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree that simply removing 230 would be a step backward, but a proper revision or replacement would be great if it addressed stuff like what you're listing here.

There needs to be clear separation between a Public Platform (which accepts all free speech, only limits based on the laws, and could accept public funding) and a Private Platform (which has internal rules that are agreed to and is either out to make its own money or follow its own passions/interests). We cannot have entities claiming to be both at the same time, just like how I cannot both be an owner of a home and a renter in it (rent to myself, receive rent writeoffs).