Looks like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is going to go away in the very near term - there's just too much conservative ill will against it.
Time to think about the consequences and opportunities that no Section 230 opens.
First, lawyers will make a lot more money until we figure out who's liable generally. I speculate that liability will fall on the deep pockets despite their best efforts. That implies comment sections go away, or are very heavily edited. I doubt people in general understand that Section 230 enables user content. A lack of platform immunity will mean much more moderation and editorial censorship. Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave, and other people's financing their distribution.
You might find that some providers simply disable comments, e.g. there's no particular reason that, say, the New York Times needs to support comments on articles for their business to remain viable.
Other sites, say, YouTube, that don't really exist without user content, might simply transfer liability to their users in their ToS during account setup. The net would be that YouTube continues its march to becoming, essentially, cableTV-like corporate media, where only professional orgs want to publish.
I'd be curious if sites like YT or even HN will feel the need to offer deletion of existing content, as a way of reducing their vulnerability surface? (Would that extend to github? People can be endlessly creative about expressing their opinion, see, eg, DeCSS) And if so, what impact would that have on training data?
Users are already liable for their content under 270, it doesn't protect the producers of content it only protects the distributors. But yeah I guess YouTube could force producers to carry insurance or something so that if YouTube is also found liable for their content then the insurance could indemnify them.
there will always be a legal shield for those in power, i.e. the presidency but it will have a bigger chilling effect on freedom of speech against those the conservatives wish to silence.
platforms will become required to police any
dissenting voices and shut down any content that the “current” administration deems unsuitable. they have levers they can pull to keep media companies in line.
the issue isn’t what plebs are posting but that the media companies ALLOW these “undesirable” posts to exist (thanks to section 230). without that protection, they will either have to aggressively moderate or disable open comments and communication which is a form of censorship. exactly what the conservatives want.
> Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave
Is this referring to platforms allegedly [1] being more prone to ban conservatives? If so, undoing that (for the sake of argument - I don't see how repealing Section 230 actually accomplishes that) can't fairly be called "forced readership" any more than forcing a library to carry a book is forcing you to read it. Forced intermediarship would be the honest term.
You're not accusing content that platforms "force you to read" what they currently don't ban, are you?
Yes, I'm referring to platforms allegedly being more prone to ban/suppress/whatever conservatives.
I'm with you, I do not think repealing or striking down Section 230 would accomplish anything towards making conservatives feel less censored, or whatever it is that things like Moody vs Netchoice, Texas' HB 20, and others are supposed to accomplish.
No, I do not think platforms force me to read anything of what they carry. Right now. I deleted my Twitter account, and I don't click on any NYT or WaPo links.
I merely observe that conservatives do have some kind of victimhood thing about mass media, and that by and large, they believe Section 230 has something to do with whatever it is they think mass media inflicts on them.
Looks like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is going to go away in the very near term - there's just too much conservative ill will against it.
Time to think about the consequences and opportunities that no Section 230 opens.
First, lawyers will make a lot more money until we figure out who's liable generally. I speculate that liability will fall on the deep pockets despite their best efforts. That implies comment sections go away, or are very heavily edited. I doubt people in general understand that Section 230 enables user content. A lack of platform immunity will mean much more moderation and editorial censorship. Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave, and other people's financing their distribution.
You might find that some providers simply disable comments, e.g. there's no particular reason that, say, the New York Times needs to support comments on articles for their business to remain viable.
Other sites, say, YouTube, that don't really exist without user content, might simply transfer liability to their users in their ToS during account setup. The net would be that YouTube continues its march to becoming, essentially, cableTV-like corporate media, where only professional orgs want to publish.
I'd be curious if sites like YT or even HN will feel the need to offer deletion of existing content, as a way of reducing their vulnerability surface? (Would that extend to github? People can be endlessly creative about expressing their opinion, see, eg, DeCSS) And if so, what impact would that have on training data?
Users are already liable for their content under 270, it doesn't protect the producers of content it only protects the distributors. But yeah I guess YouTube could force producers to carry insurance or something so that if YouTube is also found liable for their content then the insurance could indemnify them.
Repealing Section 230 is a bipartisan effort.
Doesn't Truth Social also benefit from the protection of Section 230?
Yes, in fact it wouldn't be able to legally exist without it, just like every other user-content-focused site.
yes and no.
there will always be a legal shield for those in power, i.e. the presidency but it will have a bigger chilling effect on freedom of speech against those the conservatives wish to silence.
platforms will become required to police any dissenting voices and shut down any content that the “current” administration deems unsuitable. they have levers they can pull to keep media companies in line.
the issue isn’t what plebs are posting but that the media companies ALLOW these “undesirable” posts to exist (thanks to section 230). without that protection, they will either have to aggressively moderate or disable open comments and communication which is a form of censorship. exactly what the conservatives want.
> Conservatives are not going to get the forced readership they crave
Is this referring to platforms allegedly [1] being more prone to ban conservatives? If so, undoing that (for the sake of argument - I don't see how repealing Section 230 actually accomplishes that) can't fairly be called "forced readership" any more than forcing a library to carry a book is forcing you to read it. Forced intermediarship would be the honest term.
You're not accusing content that platforms "force you to read" what they currently don't ban, are you?
[1] I say "allegedly", but for some types of right-wing content, this is not alleged at all, as the platforms themselves admit it: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707258353/facebook-bans-white...
Yes, I'm referring to platforms allegedly being more prone to ban/suppress/whatever conservatives.
I'm with you, I do not think repealing or striking down Section 230 would accomplish anything towards making conservatives feel less censored, or whatever it is that things like Moody vs Netchoice, Texas' HB 20, and others are supposed to accomplish.
No, I do not think platforms force me to read anything of what they carry. Right now. I deleted my Twitter account, and I don't click on any NYT or WaPo links.
I merely observe that conservatives do have some kind of victimhood thing about mass media, and that by and large, they believe Section 230 has something to do with whatever it is they think mass media inflicts on them.