This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1.
It’s far more fundamental than any legislation will fix. America is built on aristocratic protectionism like every other nation. Things like the Constitution allowing for copyright protection for a limited time is made effectively forever given the perspective of an average human life span.
It will always end up being gamed.
Personally, I’m tuning out more from consumerism and “the tech industry”. Even before covid I’d grown sick of what became circular debates over big O and comp sci 101 in tech, and routine office life.
I’m learning musical instruments and writing creatively. Ditched my TV. Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me. Let them defend it. I’m not interested in performing unpaid political lobbying for them.
You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230.
It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.
Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours.
Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.
Do you think in that case the government deserves to know much visitors your website has?
Also wasn't the idea of Section 230 to be more for the internet companies? Would repealing mean that the internet provider can be sued for what you do? Wouldn't that be the end result?
For me Section 230 is the cornerstone of the web, and I'd be very against its repeal unless you can show me that the web after that is better/safer for me and for my parents. I am all up for some clarifications as long as they do not limit my right to have a website that won't be sued out of the world for something that someone else does.
And about FB, Twitter, Google, Apple deal with them with a proper tool -- antitrust. Noone will ever explain to me why FB was allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram.
A company should deal with the problems they create.
They could reduce their user base, get crushed by lawsuits and regulations resulting from their reckless endangerment, gross negligence, incompetence, and/or unfettered greed. There's Also the American option of buying politicians and legislation but that's a short sighted and ethically bankrupt decision.
Personally I am of the radical opinion that the source of all this evil is advertisement. I'd simply forbid it. Advertisement is the reason why social media try to increase engagement. It uses advanced manipulation techniques and recent psychological research.
The net would cost people 2 more dollars per month but would be a much saner place without advertisement.
Disclosure: personal opinion, ianal.
So yes you're right, but it's not relevant to section 230 at all.
Maybe S230 should be amended so that once you start curating the information and/or profiting off it, you become a publisher and lose S230 protection?