Looks like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is going to go away in the very near term - there's just too much conservative ill will against it.
Time to think about the consequences and opportunities that no Section 230 opens.
First, lawyers will make a lot more money until we figure out who's liable generally. I speculate that liability will fall on the deep pockets despite their best efforts. That implies comment sections go away, or are very heavily edited. I doubt people in general understand that Section 230 enables user content. A lack of platform immunity will mean much more moderation and editorial censorship. Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave, and other people's financing their distribution.
like_any_other•40m ago
> Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave
Is this referring to platforms allegedly [1] being more prone to ban conservatives? If so, undoing that (for the sake of argument - I don't see how repealing Section 230 actually accomplishes that) can't fairly be called "forced readership" any more than forcing a library to carry a book is forcing you to read it. Forced intermediarship would be the honest term.
You're not accusing content that platforms "force you to read" what they currently don't ban, are you?
bediger4000•2h ago
Time to think about the consequences and opportunities that no Section 230 opens.
First, lawyers will make a lot more money until we figure out who's liable generally. I speculate that liability will fall on the deep pockets despite their best efforts. That implies comment sections go away, or are very heavily edited. I doubt people in general understand that Section 230 enables user content. A lack of platform immunity will mean much more moderation and editorial censorship. Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave, and other people's financing their distribution.
like_any_other•40m ago
Is this referring to platforms allegedly [1] being more prone to ban conservatives? If so, undoing that (for the sake of argument - I don't see how repealing Section 230 actually accomplishes that) can't fairly be called "forced readership" any more than forcing a library to carry a book is forcing you to read it. Forced intermediarship would be the honest term.
You're not accusing content that platforms "force you to read" what they currently don't ban, are you?
[1] I say "allegedly", but for some types of right-wing content, this is not alleged at all, as the platforms themselves admit it: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707258353/facebook-bans-white...
curt15•18m ago
free_bip•8m ago