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.
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.