Don't forget, if they repeal section 230, Gab and Parler will become targets as well. The big boys can survive regulation by purging non checkmarks. Gab and Parler are havens of free speech and will get sued into oblivion.
No, Torba is right. repealing 230 means every site is liable liable anything posted on their site by anyone. If that happens, they could easily create bogus accounts, post awful stuff, and then sue Gab into oblivion. What needs to happen is actual enforcement of 230 and narrowing the scope.
Could give more power to the companies in a weird way. 230 just needs to change how its written or repeal and replace would work. 230 and net neutrality are two issues that have consequences no matter how you slice em up. It's hard to keep the integrity of what we have with the internet without letting these companies and ISPs run wild.
Don't forget, if they repeal section 230, Gab and Parler will become targets as well. The big boys can survive regulation by purging non checkmarks. Gab and Parler are havens of free speech and will get sued into oblivion.
No, Torba is right. repealing 230 means every site is liable liable anything posted on their site by anyone. If that happens, they could easily create bogus accounts, post awful stuff, and then sue Gab into oblivion. What needs to happen is actual enforcement of 230 and narrowing the scope.
His claiming Big tech is pushing for the repeal is a lie.
it's an opinion..
By the guy that owns Gab. He doesn't want Section 230 repealed. Why?
Could give more power to the companies in a weird way. 230 just needs to change how its written or repeal and replace would work. 230 and net neutrality are two issues that have consequences no matter how you slice em up. It's hard to keep the integrity of what we have with the internet without letting these companies and ISPs run wild.
What's with the cringe title?