U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

> It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences

Maybe you phrased it wrong, but the user cannot post death threats online without fear of consequences, it's just not the platform who the consequences fall upon.

A better analogy to a public location would be holding the city liable for not removing a death threat someone affixed into some city-owned monument.

When I was young, I realized that eventually the problems of the real world would catch up to the internet. It was in the mid-2000s that I realized a well-staffed company, with people working on problems for 8+ hours a day, for years, could always outpace individuals. Just as has been true with all human affairs: better-resourced groups can overpower lesser-resourced groups.

It has been true for years now that the problems of the real world have spilled onto the internet. In its infancy, the internet was an "island of sanity," a (socially and intellectually) secure enclave from the real world.

In the 2010s, (and particularly the late 2010s) this problem accelerated, and now rather than merely bringing the problems of the real world to the net, the net is home to brand new problems which would have been impossible without the net.

It's no surprise that government wants to step in. It should be telling that both the left and right have plans for the government to regulate the internet. (and at least in my estimation, both of these plans are not well founded: either eliminate section 230, or enforce some kind of "fairness," or simply do more for censorship)

I honestly believe this is mostly a losing battle. Companies and the government, (and really people) will not have any reason to become less invested in the internet, and so the interests of individuals will be steamrolled. It's a totally unavoidable problem for most people, although a tech-savvy elite can avoid a lot of these problems.

> if you then hop in your truck and run into a tree, you can't sue the bar

Actually I don't think that's entirely true. I'm pretty sure there are laws in some places that if the bar knows a person is drunk and knows that they will drive, and does not prevent it, then the bar or the bartender (or both) can be held liable if the person then gets into an accident.

Then you may as well repeal it because Section 230 is redundant if you don't moderate content.

Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A).

In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

> The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Please pay particular attention to whom and what 1A applies.