Re:Social Media First Amendment Cases
by asadotzler on Tuesday February 27, 2024 @10:10PM
(#39533492)
that's bullshit, we don't need platforms to interact online, we were doing that fine before myspace and facebook and perhaps you're too young to remember that but it worked pretty well and we were all on the hook for what we hosted on our sites.
Re:Social Media First Amendment Cases
by int_19h on Wednesday February 28, 2024 @02:37AM
(#39535122)
We were, but not our hosting providers. Because they were protected by the law.
If what GP describes comes true, they won't be anymore.
Re:Social Media First Amendment Cases
by hellojesus on Wednesday February 28, 2024 @09:26AM
(#39538347)
My point is that it wouldn't even be safe to run a comments section on a personal blog, as any comments would count as being published by the blog owner.
Private, p2p communication would be fine, but anything publicly consumable would present a liability risk for libel, slander, etc.
Where am I miscalculating?
It's not a mystery. Look what happened when sesta/fosta became law. Craigslist had to dump their entire personal section for fear they miss a single ill intentioned post.
The consequence of 230 removal is only to destroy the ability for people to interact with one another publicly online unless one of them (or the platform) is willing to take on liability for the interaction.