Re:I resigned from Twitter
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 29, 2021 @12:22PM
(#29382453)
Remove Section 230 protections for profit driven social networks, carve out exemptions for public goods and other sites operated without a profit intent (Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, Hacker News, etc) and the problem solves itself (the cost to police/moderate the platform rises above a point where the revenue returned is no longer sufficient to make the endeavor worthwhile). Social media is toxic due to the social fabric impact being externalized and socialized while the profits are privatized.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I could get behind some more restrictions on websites of a certain size, but putting any burden on brand-new web site owners beyond urgently dealing with problematic content is too much of a burden. It just acts as a moat for powerful incumbents, and they have far too deep moats as it is.
That would just destroy all user generated content on the internet....
Re:I resigned from Twitter
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 29, 2021 @03:59PM
(#29385217)
It would destroy user generated content below the value of moderation cost on certain platforms.
You can't know the quality of content before it is submitted. It would effectively turn the internet into TV. Did you forget web hosting is also protected by section 230? Web hosting as we know it would go away. Every site update would need to be pre-approved by the web hosting company.
Re:I resigned from Twitter
by shadowgovt on Monday November 29, 2021 @12:25PM
(#29382487)
Sadly, the solution so described amounts to nationalizing free speech (between the removal of protections and the "blessing" of some few channels).
Wouldn't fly in the US, so it's a non-starters since those companies are based in the US.
Except in reality it's the opposite.
Free Speech is SO IMPORTANT that it can't be fettered by private companies for private gain like Facebook.
Re:I resigned from Twitter
by shadowgovt on Monday November 29, 2021 @07:35PM
(#29387307)
No disagreement that free speech is important, but the solution proposed up-thread wouldn't safeguard it. In practice, it would instead limit controversial content to only a small set of sites while everything else (for fear of lawsuits currently headed off by S230 protections) would either close shop or become more moderated than it already is.
... This is in addition to the legal / philosophical criticism that the government repealing S230 protection for all but a few websites would be equivalent to the government providing libel-lawsuit protection to only a few state-sanctioned media outlets. Wholly incompatible with the first amendment.
It really doesn't matter the system - people are already upset that people they don't like are doing things like selling NFTs (please don't buy NFTs, they're cringe)
OK, Facebook is now a non profit which only income comes from selling ad space to "Definitely Not Facebook Inc" at such a price which avoids racking up profits. (Like ad house of old.)
Re:I resigned from Twitter
by toomuchtodo on Monday November 29, 2021 @02:43PM
(#29384267)
Non profit can't have shareholders, and there are regulations around how non profits operate financially.