You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by cblconfederate on Saturday January 09, 2021 @04:46AM (#25698989)

I believe the understanding is that without 230, facebook would be liable just like the rest of the press is, and thus be essentially forced to disallow free-for-all posting.

This is a different mode of manipulation, where the people who own the media can shape the public discourse, but isn't that what the whole world had for decades and decades before social media?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by ghaff on Saturday January 09, 2021 @08:33AM (#25700190)

In general, the understanding (right or wrong) is that without 230, a platform has to choose one of two actions: No moderation (modulo moderating for illegal content--whatever that is exactly) or moderating all posts (which is clearly not an option in general).

It may or may not make a big difference as a practical matter. Most things Twitter would moderate today are arguably threats, incitement to riot, etc., all of which could in principle be prosecuted as crimes. But it's at least a difference in principle.

ADDED: On the other hand, there's all the SPAM, link SPAM, astroturfing etc. which isn't actually illegal. Arguably some things could be handled through Terms of Service. But it's worth remembering that Section 230 didn't come about to address purely theoretical concerns given that Prodigy did lose a legal case after all.

[ Parent | on HN ]