There are decades of academic work on police abolition, books upon books and papers upon papers. Not everyone who says "defund the police" is an abolitionist, but many are.

As far as I can tell, there's no concrete replacement proposed for section 230, just a general wish for less protection for these platforms. Complete police and prison abolition is a much more thorough and considered philosophy.

Fair, which is what I assumed was the case, rather than the idea that we wake up one morning to literally zero recourse for someone stealing our stuff.

That assumption of cohesiveness of argument is what I’m trying to get at with my question. The argument we should be having is in the terms of the academic work, rather than the one-line phrase.

My point overall is that no equivalent academic work has been presented that actually attempts to remove Section 230 protections (as the protections stem ultimately from the first amendment), so it’s not fair to compare the two.

I may have gotten separated a bit from that point along the way, so I apologize for my lack of clarity!

I recollect a New York Times opinion piece called "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police."

I don't know the size of the group, but I believe (believed?) it was certainly a vocal group.

I have never been clear on whether they wanted to eliminate police entirely, or turn it volunteer- and donation-only.