Perhaps repealing it is good so it can be replaced with one where companies can be registered as 230 protected or not. Meaning, are they a free-speech friendly site or not.
In other words, I like the idea of a facebook, or twitter, or parler, or reddit being protected from the content of their users. That makes a lot of sense. But the moment that one of those sites tries to control the content of their users whether through shadowbanning, fact-checking, etc, then they formally lose their 230 protections and can now be sued. Furthermore, the content provider whose information was censored should be able to sue that platform if they had 230 status.
The only exceptions I make are for the same exceptions we currently have (can't run in to a theatre and yell FIRE.... or you can't coordinate a terrorist attack, or any kind of physical harm to others).
These platforms lure people in under the false pretense of free speech. They would have never obtained critical mass if they censored like this from the start. Once they have secured their monopoly and raised a sufficiently high barrier to entry, then they change their rules. That should be illegal.
They also do not apply their terms of service equally to their users, which should be illegal and represent a contract violation. It should be illegal to remove one post for misinformation but then allow others to remain, if your pretense for the removal was the misinformation. You should have to be honest and make public the fact that the post was removed because "you're a conservative" rather than hide behind fake justifications that aren't in their term of service outside of catch-all bogus clauses that should also be illegal in such contracts.
Perhaps repealing it is good so it can be replaced with one where companies can be registered as 230 protected or not. Meaning, are they a free-speech friendly site or not.
In other words, I like the idea of a facebook, or twitter, or parler, or reddit being protected from the content of their users. That makes a lot of sense. But the moment that one of those sites tries to control the content of their users whether through shadowbanning, fact-checking, etc, then they formally lose their 230 protections and can now be sued. Furthermore, the content provider whose information was censored should be able to sue that platform if they had 230 status.
The only exceptions I make are for the same exceptions we currently have (can't run in to a theatre and yell FIRE.... or you can't coordinate a terrorist attack, or any kind of physical harm to others).
Some other problems:
These platforms lure people in under the false pretense of free speech. They would have never obtained critical mass if they censored like this from the start. Once they have secured their monopoly and raised a sufficiently high barrier to entry, then they change their rules. That should be illegal.
They also do not apply their terms of service equally to their users, which should be illegal and represent a contract violation. It should be illegal to remove one post for misinformation but then allow others to remain, if your pretense for the removal was the misinformation. You should have to be honest and make public the fact that the post was removed because "you're a conservative" rather than hide behind fake justifications that aren't in their term of service outside of catch-all bogus clauses that should also be illegal in such contracts.