From what I understand 230 defends Twitter and Facebook against being held accountable for the contents posted by users. Lets say they remove it what impact it is going to have?
Other then call for violence directly it is going to be defended by the 1'st Amendment so I do not see it hurting this giant corporations in a big way.
On top of that they are going to be allowed a time of X to remove calls to violence on their site, similar with how EU did.
What am I missing here?
Removal of Sec. 230 protections would mean they're wide open for lawsuits related to things published on their platforms. This is what the current, probably excessively broad interpretation of Sec. 230 is protecting them from -- the fact that they're so heavily curating what appears on their sites indicates they're stretching the definition of a platform.
They're either stretching that or they're stretching the definitions of "unknowing" with the harassment and threats from people they agree with being left up, and stretching "good faith" with the biased application of their own rules to punish the people that they do not agree with.
But outside of calling for violence or maybe some porn stuff, lets say they find a way to easily remove from their platform in good faith and in reasonable time. Does that mean they are free to censor as much as possible and do what ever they want? What I'm asking in the post is how big a thing is this? Today the 230 is going to be meaningless, maybe they have to pay 10 mill a year in lawyers and fines, pocket change. I fear that the social media are out of reach of sanctions. The right does not like to enforce strict laws and since the media does the will of the left, the left has no interest in restricting them in anyway.
The right has very little time to learn that if they do not enforce these laws, they will cease to exist. They will be hunted down and killed.