Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect...
by ajross on Saturday January 09, 2021 @09:33AM
(#25700657)
Arrgh, you are repeating almost verbatim like half the nonsense that is debunked in the linked article!
If, say, Twitter doesn't want republicans to talk on the Internet (to pick one ridiculous example), repealing section 320 would do nothing to stop them, nothing. No modification of section 320 would do anything, because nothing in section 320 deals with content moderation at all. It's only about liability.
I mean, just to be blunt: if 320 was repealed right now Parler would be sued into jelly given all the violent right wing garbage on that site, but Twitter (which is trying to remove it) would still be around, and still (as per my ridiculous example) censoring republicans.
Now, maybe you want some kind of new fairness doctrine law or something. And that would be interesting to discuss. But it's got nothing to do with liability protections for internet companies, nothing at all.
If, say, Twitter doesn't want republicans to talk on the Internet (to pick one ridiculous example), repealing section 320 would do nothing to stop them, nothing. No modification of section 320 would do anything, because nothing in section 320 deals with content moderation at all. It's only about liability.
I mean, just to be blunt: if 320 was repealed right now Parler would be sued into jelly given all the violent right wing garbage on that site, but Twitter (which is trying to remove it) would still be around, and still (as per my ridiculous example) censoring republicans.
Now, maybe you want some kind of new fairness doctrine law or something. And that would be interesting to discuss. But it's got nothing to do with liability protections for internet companies, nothing at all.