This is a fair take. But it really just highlights the stupidity of Trump saying “SECTION 230 BAD MUST REPEAL NOW!!” An actual carefully constructed law to revamp things is what would be needed, and right now that doesn’t exist.
1 Like
Right, this obviously. I’d be one of the first to say that unfettered social media access used to spread propoganda is a terrible blight on our world, but repealing 230 is NOT the way to fix it
Gonna get my content takedown form letters ready. Seriously though, would be great for shitty lawyers. States would then have to enact even more restrictive SLAPP laws in response to the flood of litigation. (I’m for anti-SLAPP laws, but better to not have a disease than to have a half-effective treatment.)
It’s actually a horrible thing and nobody is even contemplating it.
It’s a bug stuck in Trump’s head. There is zero political will by either side to repeal it.
3 Likes
This is a bit of a misconception. Even without CDA 230, there’s no obligation for Facebook to investigate anything that’s posted by its users. It’s the same reason that you’re not liable if someone graffitis something slanderous on the wall of your house. What CDA 230 protects companies from is being treated as if they were the graffiti artist based solely on the fact that they sometimes cover up graffiti that’s painted on their wall.
The actual result of repealing CDA 230 would be that the tech giants just use ML to censor anything iffy, most companies just ban as much user content as possible, and then everything else becomes 4chan, because censoring neo-Nazis and the like invites massive legal liability (or at least hassles). This last is why the right wants it, obviously.
I am curious to know more about how other countries handle these issues. Do they all just have CDA 230 analogues?
Repealing it effective two years from now would be, though. Congress would then be committed to revamp the law.
User submitted porn is already on the way out with the porn hub issues. Going to have to be all verified.
So it will be around.
But this is the way this stuff should be changed. Just as the OP mentions the human trafficking changes. We improve it by carving out exceptions not repealing it and then trying to create exceptions to the repeal.
So basically trumpets want to repeal it because they are thinking this means ANY moderation by fb/Twitter would make them liable, so the result would be they can post anything they want with no worry of being fact checked.
People approach this very weirdly. Almost every hypothetical of what would happen is not based in reality.
You could see a lot less US based stuff, and that probably is something that should happen tbh.
Pretty much when the reality is the likely wouldn’t be able to post anything that was not heavily moderated before it was ever made public.
Trump doesn’t understand that repealing 230 would have made everyone squelch him.
Twitter is not going to foot the legal bill for all the crazy shit Trump says.
1 Like
You know the next step would then be a national fire wall right?
I don’t think people are being realistic when they are thinking this wouldn’t be that big of deal and they are not overlaying USA#1 legal system on other countries they think makes it fine.
Which specific hypotheticals of what would happen are not based in reality?
Legal scholars and industry experts seem to agree that a repeal of section 230 will cause internet platforms to reassess and change how they do business, with some de-platforming all user-generated content and others being much more willing to take down such content if it generates a complaint.
Its like Roe v Wade and every other conservative dog chasing the car type issue. They’re not catching the car, they have no plan for if they do and the worst case scenarios are never playing out
The EU has a very similar safe harbor law. Australia doesn’t but has some precedents based on Australians defamation laws which make it hard to sue people over content they didn’t author themselves.
What if platforms were held liable for anonymous content that couldn’t be tracked to a real person?
This would be the case. We think requiring phone numbers are bad? Front and back of photo id would become a real thing for those left allowing user content.