Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) by pchristensen on Tuesday November 01, 2022 @08:08PM (#33429699)

This is the most well thought out takes on Section 230 I've read yet. David Sacks is publicly conservative and I disagree with him on a lot. But he's also a lawyer and very, very smart.

Worth a read, no matter where you stand on the issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) by TigeriusKirk on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @07:53AM (#33434252)

Particularly since Sacks is in Musk's close adviser circle for Twitter, and is even mentioned as a potential CEO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) by tptacek on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @09:19AM (#33435279)

Lots of people are lawyers. Most of them, including some of the most extraordinarily competent, are not First Amendment specialists. First Amendment Law Twitter makes sort of a cottage industry of dunking on lawyers, including accomplished litigators, for saying dumb First Amendment things. Sacks, so far as I can tell, has never professionally practiced law: he got his JD in '98, went to McKinsey, then joined PayPal and spent the rest of his career in startups. There is no particular reason to believe he knows what he's talking about here simply by dint of having a law degree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) by pchristensen on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @07:27PM (#33444284)

I don’t necessarily agree with Sacks, but most discussion of 230 is just braying nonsense. This one is at least worth discussing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) by tptacek on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @07:30PM (#33444324)

I disagree, for reasons I've given all across the thread. His "incitement" stuff is fatally broken. His "fighting words" stuff is fatally broken. His "defamation" stuff presumes prior restraint for defamation. It's a mess.

[ Parent | on HN ]