Re:Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
by tptacek on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @08:35AM
(#33434716)
This article from 2020 is making the rounds because David Sacks is in Elon Musk's inner circle and now works at Twitter.
It's an absolute hash of an argument that would mire every American service provider in perpetual litigation. Twitter would be better off with no Section 230 than with one that requires them to prove "false statements of fact" (even the word "fact" in that phrase is a subject of white-hot intense litigation) or even "incitement". It's unlikely that Sacks stands by this analysis today, and more likely that Sacks wrote it believing that he'd never be personally responsible for implementing it.
It's an absolute hash of an argument that would mire every American service provider in perpetual litigation. Twitter would be better off with no Section 230 than with one that requires them to prove "false statements of fact" (even the word "fact" in that phrase is a subject of white-hot intense litigation) or even "incitement". It's unlikely that Sacks stands by this analysis today, and more likely that Sacks wrote it believing that he'd never be personally responsible for implementing it.