So it's still not any worse than the status quo already is? Especially with what's been going on against Patreon the last couple years, stripping these companies of legal protections is a good step forward. Taking the tech giants to court en masse is definitely an effective method.
The only kind of platform that wouldn't be liable in the absence of section 230 is one that simply refuses to censor user content.
Trojan Horse for what? They control 90% of the internet between them all already. They have nothing to gain by rendering themselves liable for criminal content on their websites.
What it would trigger is the death of social media. They'd be held criminally liable for anything done on their platform.
Which means that any platform they could possibly create would be profoundly unattractive to users.
So it's still not any worse than the status quo already is? Especially with what's been going on against Patreon the last couple years, stripping these companies of legal protections is a good step forward. Taking the tech giants to court en masse is definitely an effective method.
The only kind of platform that wouldn't be liable in the absence of section 230 is one that simply refuses to censor user content.
Either way that's a win for us.
Trojan Horse for what? They control 90% of the internet between them all already. They have nothing to gain by rendering themselves liable for criminal content on their websites.
maybe. banking "censorship" laws were put in place but the big 5 or so banks still clean money for international drug dealers and slavers.