Because Barr is literally a fascist with a long history of violating civil rights. He wants to rule unquestioned, unopposed, and unaccountable. He doesn't care so long as he can torture into compliance.

My initial reaction to reading about Barr makes me want to agree with you. However, I really haven't looked into him too much - tbh I only really know about him from popping up in HN articles (where he is always cast in a negative light). Any chance you have some links relevant to his history of violating civil rights, etc? Would love to be able to read through them to form a stronger opinion myself.

ACLU is one here listing many of his outright struck down ones including sticking Haitain asylum seekers in Gitmo indefinitely. And that is restricted to the obscenities that the courts have called out instead of accepting as the norm.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/william-barr-has...

My personal philosophy is civil rights are not up for a debate or vote. Normalizing them is itself a form of damage that mere politeness can never justify.

Thank you for the link! ^_^

It looks like Barr has been pushing pretty extreme views for longer than I've been alive :/

I can definitely see why you would use the word fascist to describe him

> As far as I can tell, revoking section 230 would just result in people putting up fake content themselves and then suing the platform they posted to. Is there a reason why this wouldn't be possible?

Maybe not themselves, but they could get someone else to. Or any competing site could post stuff that would increase legal liability. It would be the end of forums.

"I'll wreck you on twitter, you flatten me on Facebook; we both cash out" ;)

> Barr seems so intent on trying to change technology in such major ways as this

He's not saying that. He's asking for a discussion on how the laws can be adapted for the current world. In the video of his speech, he specifically says they haven't made up their mind on how it should change. He's simply bringing up the points on how the current law is a bit outdated for the current world.

I appreciate someone coming in with a different viewpoint. I admit that I haven't actually watched him talk, and only read 'choice' quotes from him in articles. I will have to take the time to watch him speak and google around a bit. At this point in time, my opinion of Barr is based more on gut feelings than anything else.

Here's the video if you are curious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uwN2cJzprs

Be careful of how media frames things. Specifically skeptical of when media does "choice/selective quotes" with "..." ellipsis tactic. Often when I see ellipsis, I go looking for more context and it ends up saying something quite different than what media claims.

Suppose you, and your allies, have publicly insisted that major tech companies are biased against Conservatives by deleting their posts, banning them, or whatever. You need to be seen to be taking some action to fix things somehow.

I personally doubt they'll change anything. Republicans talked about the idea of the media being biased against them for decades, from newspapers to Holywood. Major legal changes have been fairly rare.

Barr doesn't care about the "implications" for the tech companies or their employees. And he's not trying to "change technology" as you put it.

He's just trying to stop these companies from playing dirty, as they have been for a long time.

He's concerned with making services such as Youtube, FB and Reddit face up to the fact that they are publishers, and not really forums because they're so riddled with AI and fishy algorithms.