They employ editors and and producers, who oversee the actual content producers who are generally paid.

That’s not social media.

Rule number one for editors and “journalists” is don’t get sued.

That’s why you see the word “alleged” all the time and “so and so claimed” rather than stating an obvious fact.

But again, this is professional media.

In addition to this very good point, I'd also add that consistent, even, quality moderation of platforms with as many users as Twitter is not possible.

Even trying to do moderation at that scale just results in thousands and thousands of workers with psychological issues, from how damaging the work is.

Exposing workers to the platform causes psychological issues... What does exposing users to the platform cause?

"Just" solved? No. But your point makes it clear why Section 230 is not important to protect the Internet: Other businesses host speech without it just fine. Big Tech should not get a special get out of jail free card.

I’ve just read the other HN post about Section 230 so I’m obviously an expert: Section 230 is incredibly important in protecting the internet. It’s why no one can sue HN for what you and I write here, and even why no one can sue _you_ for something you didn’t write yourself but happened to quote in your comment. Without it companies would be sued all the time: it’s a hostile world out there for businesses. You could still win on the basis of the 1st amendment alone most of the time, but that’s often a long, convoluted, and expensive argument to make. The point of 230 is to dismiss those frivolous lawsuits immediately.

> But your point makes it clear why Section 230 is not important to protect the Internet

I’ve only given evidence that businesses not privy to the Section 230 liability shield are doing exactly the same thing that you claim would be prevented by repealing Section 230, and therefore repeal will not solve the problem.

It is a fallacy to extend this to say that Section 230 is not important to protect the internet in general, as the internet is about far more than companies putting profit over public safety. The absence of the liability shield will absolutely cause other chilling effects. See my reply to a sibling reply for more detail, with evidence to support this position.[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695770

> Section 230 is not important to protect the Internet: Other businesses host speech without it just fine

It's important if you want scalable P2P platforms; the offline businesses you are talking about have pre-distribution human editorial review of all content, which effects scale and focus and permits essentially only top-down communication.

It's time we stop treating scale as an inherent good or an excuse for bad behavior. If you can't scale without major societal harm, you shouldn't scale.

I'm not disagreeing but are we making section 230 into a sacred cow? Surely the world isn't going to just fall apart if it is repealed.

No, but if someone is going to make a claim that repealing Section 230 will solve a given problem, they’d better actually have some reasonable evidence that it will solve that problem, and not just cause a massive amount of collateral damage.

FOSTA-SESTA punched a relatively small hole in the Section 230 liability shield using the pretext that web sites facilitating sex trafficking (read: Backpage) couldn’t be prosecuted otherwise. That was a lie; Backpage was eventually successfully prosecuted using legal tools which had previously existed[0]. The thing that legislators claimed they were trying to solve—sex trafficking—remains woefully unaddressed, but the collateral damage was significant and disproportionately affected marginalised groups and small web site operators (and may have actually made the sex trafficking problem worse)[1].

Claims that Section 230 need to be repealed to “take away power from Big Tech” or to “stop extremism” are just wrong.

A blanket repeal of Section 230 will only concentrate power even more with Big Tech since they’re the only entities with enough money and power to accept liability for every shitposting troll on the web. (Again, FOSTA-SESTA already illustrated this: the big dating services continued to operate, while niche/hobbyist sites—and subsections of sites like Craigslist where dating was not their primary focus—shuttered.)

A blanket repeal of Section 230 will not stop extremism since there are multiple other non-internet sources peddling misinformation.

Section 230 is not the cause of these problems any more than paved roads are the cause of deaths from high speed car crashes. Few people would seriously argue that we should go back to driving only on dirt roads, but it feels like that’s where so many people are with this subject, and it’s really taking the focus away from why extremism exists in the first place and what we need to do to tackle that root problem.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/trump-signs-bill...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...

I really appreciate how much I learned from this reply thank you.