Is there any limit on Section 230 you'd support? I go back and forth on this a lot. I basically agree with what you've wrote, but I also think putting liability on big tech is fundamental. - ThreadSky

justinling.ca • 21 hours ago

Is there any limit on Section 230 you'd support?

I go back and forth on this a lot. I basically agree with what you've wrote, but I also think putting liability on big tech is fundamental.

Comments

mmasnick.bsky.social•21 hours ago

I've reviewed tons of proposals and they all would make things worse. Mostly by not understanding how 1A and 230 work together. I'm always open to new ideas but I've yet to see one that wouldn't cement giants and harm regular users and smaller players

justinling.ca•19 hours ago

That's fair. But I'm seeing MAGA propose tying s230 protections to "free speech" policies. I guess I wonder what the non-crazy counter to that is. Maybe there isn't one.

andycraig.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Tying 230 immunity to any kind of content or viewpoint discrimination, i.e. your website must allow or must not allow this or that protected speech, would be unconstitutional. You can't do an end run around the First Amendment like that.

juanpablodewes.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Is the problem “free speech” or anonymous/bot accounts and algorithmic bias?

andycraig.bsky.social•1 hour ago

If you want to have a website with those things, it is protected by the First Amendment as surely as our conversation here.

juanpablodewes.bsky.social•1 hour ago

Of course, but there’s a difference between:

a) 100 humans posting their support for X

b) 10,000 bots accounts posting their support for X to support the position of 1 human

The above isn’t a free speech issue, its a disproportionate reach issue

phaseblowly.bsky.social•19 hours ago

A goal of the donor class that owns the DNC. The “good billionaires” don’t pony up loot for nothing.

tweetld.bsky.social•44 minutes ago

1A is irrelevant. Social media isn't owned by the government, except by Trump media and Musk.

jdkahler.bsky.social•21 hours ago

Fundamental for what reasons? Who decides? Government?

justinling.ca•21 hours ago

Because this total immunity, the kind of which is pretty unheard of, is also a shield for platforms to inflict serious externalities on society (foreign interference, misinformation, revenge porn, etc.) It was governments who decided to give that immunity.

We (voters) should get to decide limits.

mmasnick.bsky.social•21 hours ago

It's not total immunity at all. That's just wrong. It's only about placing liability on the party who actually creates the violative content

justinling.ca•21 hours ago

Immunity for the platform, I mean. (And I know there's a couple of exceptions now.)

mandoqueer.itch.io•20 hours ago

and every time those exceptions have been carved out things became worse on the issue meant to be tackled by it, not better.

mandoqueer.itch.io•20 hours ago

Section 230 has an exception for copyright infringement and now companies and random third parties constantly abuse that exception to get fair use content removed for copyright infringement and SESTA/FOSTA just made sex worker's lives harder and sex trafficking harder to investigate.

jdkahler.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Um, that’s what congress is for. The one which wrote the law in the first place.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply