Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–22 of 22 posts

Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons

#21

Post by readitalready »

hn_acker wrote: post #18
readitalready wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies hosting libel should be sued, because the same companies also have editorial control over their content. If you don't want companies to be sued for libel, then they should also be forced to remove their editorial controls. No more algorithms, no more content moderation, no more banning, etc. You can't have it both ways. The only thing Section 230 did was protect large corporations by removing their liabilit…

> The only thing Section 230 did was protect large corporations by removing their liability for hosted content, thereby enforcing generic corporatist speech. It did NOT protect speech on the internet. Do you really think removing Section 230 would lead to more speech overall on the internet? Without Section 230 protections, the companies that would choose not to moderate at all would externalize content moderation in…

Correct. Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less. We will have lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls instead of monopolistic corporations that enforce their own viewpoint.

The only thing section 230 did was protect large corporations. It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.

Re: Section 230 Turns 30; Both Parties Want It Gone–For Contradictory Reasons

#22

Post by hn_acker »

readitalready wrote: post #21
hn_acker wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only thing Section 230 did was protect large corporations by removing their liability for hosted content, thereby enforcing generic corporatist speech. It did NOT protect speech on the internet. Do you really think removing Section 230 would lead to more speech overall on the internet? Without Section 230 protections, the companies that would choose not to moderate at all would externalize content moderation in…

Correct. Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less. We will have lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls instead of monopolistic corporations that enforce their own viewpoint. The only thing section 230 did was protect large corporations. It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.

> We will have lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls

This can already happen right now. Nothing about Section 230 hinders or prevents people who would make the hypothetical "lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls" from making them while Section 230 continues to exist as is.

> Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less.

You have not tried to refute most of the claims I made in my previous replies. Of the claims you do attempt to refute (e.g. whether removing Section 230 will result in less speech), I feel that you are missing steps in the chain of consequences.

> It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.

As I stated elsewhere, YouTube has both a First Amendment right and a Section 230 immunity to ban Guy Christensen (to the extent that a government actor/agency does not coerce YouTube into doing so).

Post reply on HN