I wan't big tech dismantled and their immunity obliterated more than a one time government paycheck. The latter is not as important. That check and the pork is horrible and not a solution. Opening the country back up is long term financial relief. Repealing 230 is longterm securing of freedom of speech and anti censorship.
How so? Without 230 sites will have to either 1) allow all content, even the malware, spam, porn, gore etc to escape liability or 2) only allow people on their platforms that they trust will not post items they will get sued for.
Option 1 sounds nice except you can see how the sites go to shit quick without any moderation. Option 2 will silence everyone except for the safest of creators.
Social media acts like publishers intstead of a platform, censoring political speech they don't agree with. They can't have it both ways. Twitter banning the Hunter Biden story and banning the NY Post from using the site, facebook censoring the story, all this shit should have been the last straw.
I agree, but repeal will kill any start up challengers as they will be prevented from moderating anything or they can be sued for any crazy comment a user posts.
We need to reform 230, not replace it. Maybe we have certain limits at which point it no longer applies, such as greater than 1 Million daily active users or 10 million total users. Or maybe we base it on revenue, traffic, etc.
But if we repeal 230, what is going to happen is Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are going to lock down even more, only allowing approved voices. They will also use their big reach to add binding arbitration clauses to their Terms of Service so even when you can sue them, you have to go through arbitration if you ever had an account on their services.
I wan't big tech dismantled and their immunity obliterated more than a one time government paycheck. The latter is not as important. That check and the pork is horrible and not a solution. Opening the country back up is long term financial relief. Repealing 230 is longterm securing of freedom of speech and anti censorship.
How so? Without 230 sites will have to either 1) allow all content, even the malware, spam, porn, gore etc to escape liability or 2) only allow people on their platforms that they trust will not post items they will get sued for.
Option 1 sounds nice except you can see how the sites go to shit quick without any moderation. Option 2 will silence everyone except for the safest of creators.
Social media acts like publishers intstead of a platform, censoring political speech they don't agree with. They can't have it both ways. Twitter banning the Hunter Biden story and banning the NY Post from using the site, facebook censoring the story, all this shit should have been the last straw.
I agree, but repeal will kill any start up challengers as they will be prevented from moderating anything or they can be sued for any crazy comment a user posts.
We need to reform 230, not replace it. Maybe we have certain limits at which point it no longer applies, such as greater than 1 Million daily active users or 10 million total users. Or maybe we base it on revenue, traffic, etc.
But if we repeal 230, what is going to happen is Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are going to lock down even more, only allowing approved voices. They will also use their big reach to add binding arbitration clauses to their Terms of Service so even when you can sue them, you have to go through arbitration if you ever had an account on their services.