News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA. Parent comment

Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by codazoda on Saturday January 09, 2021 @09:57AM (#25700825)
> Today its primary effect is to give an impenetrable legal shield to giant tech corporations that engage in deliberate society-wide manipulation of information.

I work at a small (compared to Google and Facebook) classifieds site. I don't think we could exist without section 230, because it would have been too expensive to start without immunity for what our users posted. So, it still does it's initial purpose.

I would also like to start a social network for my local community, but I can't afford the legal liability of what my neighbors might say on the platform I built. If 230 goes away, maybe I'll never be able to build that community. And don't forget, FB started at a single college.

I'm also sure that the initial individuals posting things are exactly the correct individuals to be liable for the things they post.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by diebeforei485 on Saturday January 09, 2021 @02:49PM (#25703961)
I'm not sure this is true. Before Section 230 was a thing, companies were not liable for what users wrote on their platforms so long as they didn't moderate legal content [illegal content would be like housing ads with landlords specifying preferred race of tenants, or threats against the President].

A classifieds website could definitely exist post-230, and many did pre-230.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by joshuamorton on Saturday January 09, 2021 @05:11PM (#25705436)
> or threats against the President

It is very much legal to threaten the President. You might get a visit from the Secret Service if your threat is deemed credible enough, but otherwise, threatening the President is exactly the same as threatening anyone else (actually perhaps even less likely to result in sanction: I could eventually accuse you of harassment for repeatedly making threats against me, the President likely cannot).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by krapp on Saturday January 09, 2021 @05:13PM (#25705453)
>It is very much legal to threaten the President.

Sorry, no[0].

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by diebeforei485 on Saturday January 09, 2021 @05:42PM (#25705766)
> threatening the President is exactly the same as threatening anyone else

This is completely untrue.

[ Parent | on HN ]