230 DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO CENSOR. I don't know why people don't get this; the ability to censor on your platform is derived from property rights, not 230. You could repeal 230 and it would in no affect a sites ability to ban or censor you, or even providers from deplatforming you. What we need is reform in the payment processing area. Alt tech is viable, except they keep getting kicked off payment processors. Those companies receive a lot of tax payer funded support (e.g. FDIC insurance), so forcing them to not censor is philosophically consistent.
repealing 230 would make social medias have to decide between censoring everything or nothing. 230 is supposed to read that you are not liable for what users say if you are not a "publisher". Repealing it would mean they are responsible for every comment. When people kill themselves from online bullying twitter and facebook would be immediately liable.
"Repealing it would mean they are responsible for every comment"
Which means they would be forced to censor, it would be especially problematic for fresh alt-tech platforms since they have less manpower to moderate/censor and less legal resources to defend themselves.
" make social medias have to decide between censoring everything or nothing"
To achieve this I think a slight amendment to 230 could be made, to explicitly state it only applies in case they do not abuse their censoring ability (e.g they are a platform, not a publisher).
exactly why 230 had to be repealed
and exactly why the GOP didn't want to repeal. They don't want us to have a voice. That would take away their power
230 DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO CENSOR. I don't know why people don't get this; the ability to censor on your platform is derived from property rights, not 230. You could repeal 230 and it would in no affect a sites ability to ban or censor you, or even providers from deplatforming you. What we need is reform in the payment processing area. Alt tech is viable, except they keep getting kicked off payment processors. Those companies receive a lot of tax payer funded support (e.g. FDIC insurance), so forcing them to not censor is philosophically consistent.
repealing 230 would make social medias have to decide between censoring everything or nothing. 230 is supposed to read that you are not liable for what users say if you are not a "publisher". Repealing it would mean they are responsible for every comment. When people kill themselves from online bullying twitter and facebook would be immediately liable.
"Repealing it would mean they are responsible for every comment" Which means they would be forced to censor, it would be especially problematic for fresh alt-tech platforms since they have less manpower to moderate/censor and less legal resources to defend themselves.
" make social medias have to decide between censoring everything or nothing" To achieve this I think a slight amendment to 230 could be made, to explicitly state it only applies in case they do not abuse their censoring ability (e.g they are a platform, not a publisher).