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.