Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio...
by dragonwriter on Thursday December 10, 2020 @01:47PM
(#25376940)
> The objections you're raising (and repeated on sites like the one you posted) are a matter of interpretation of the law,
No, they are a matter of clear and unambiguous historical fact.
> and people on both sides of the political spectrum are now realizing that the law needs clarification.
No, subsets within each major party are adopting preferences for regulation with opposed purposes to those for which CDA Section 230 was originally adopted. Which we could debate the merits of, but it's simply factually wrong to describe actions of the type that both the plain text and the legislative history of Section 230 show clearly to be exactly what 230 was adopted to remove existing barriers to are somehow in conflict with Section 230’s protections or purpose.
No, they are a matter of clear and unambiguous historical fact.
> and people on both sides of the political spectrum are now realizing that the law needs clarification.
No, subsets within each major party are adopting preferences for regulation with opposed purposes to those for which CDA Section 230 was originally adopted. Which we could debate the merits of, but it's simply factually wrong to describe actions of the type that both the plain text and the legislative history of Section 230 show clearly to be exactly what 230 was adopted to remove existing barriers to are somehow in conflict with Section 230’s protections or purpose.