Those megacorps only exist because of government regulation. Remove those protections, sites like Gab and .win will flourish, while twitter and facebook die off. Its that fucking simple.
Its funny because we're all aware of 230 and the protections it gives. Literally from the government. People here just want the quicker solution which is government smash
The thing that confuses people about 230 is that it's not a simple negative law. It's not saying "don't do this". It's an exception to a legal framework that promotes civil litigation against commentary.
The law already existed to strictly control speech by supporting expensive civil lawsuits, and then granted immunity if tech firms promised to moderate their comment sections. 230 actually exists to support content moderation, not remove it.
That's why if you remove it, you'd open up social media firms to civil lawsuits.
If you want to promote free speech, you have end 230 and simultaneously remove the underlying laws enabling the right to sue publishers for some of their comments. You get peace from an armed society, and you get more tolerant discourse when you refuse to protect people from attacks and insults.
If you want to free speech, you have to not protect people from it.
230 is written in such a weird and backwards way to how you would think a law would normally work, that it confuses people.
That's actually a super good point that I wasn't thinking about. Over-regulation stifing the smaller competitors. If anything just through red tape alone.
My mind was more on "tangible" companies (meaning those that deal in physical goods) when I commented that. Still though, I can see where dropping regulations would make at least some of them better able to compete. It's not perfect, but what we are doing now sucks...so...what can it hurt?
Those megacorps only exist because of government regulation. Remove those protections, sites like Gab and .win will flourish, while twitter and facebook die off. Its that fucking simple.
I'll try to explain that, but people are convinced that the government is the only way to protect them from institutions that the government created.
Its funny because we're all aware of 230 and the protections it gives. Literally from the government. People here just want the quicker solution which is government smash
The thing that confuses people about 230 is that it's not a simple negative law. It's not saying "don't do this". It's an exception to a legal framework that promotes civil litigation against commentary.
The law already existed to strictly control speech by supporting expensive civil lawsuits, and then granted immunity if tech firms promised to moderate their comment sections. 230 actually exists to support content moderation, not remove it.
That's why if you remove it, you'd open up social media firms to civil lawsuits.
If you want to promote free speech, you have end 230 and simultaneously remove the underlying laws enabling the right to sue publishers for some of their comments. You get peace from an armed society, and you get more tolerant discourse when you refuse to protect people from attacks and insults.
If you want to free speech, you have to not protect people from it.
230 is written in such a weird and backwards way to how you would think a law would normally work, that it confuses people.
That's actually a super good point that I wasn't thinking about. Over-regulation stifing the smaller competitors. If anything just through red tape alone.
My mind was more on "tangible" companies (meaning those that deal in physical goods) when I commented that. Still though, I can see where dropping regulations would make at least some of them better able to compete. It's not perfect, but what we are doing now sucks...so...what can it hurt?