I don’t think people (including those who have been pushing for it’s repeal) understand the consequences of its elimination.
Section 230 provides that sites have no liability for user content, and they have no liability for moderating user content, subject to some limited exceptions for certain types of prohibited content, or prohibited moderation.
With existing case law, in my mind repealing section 230 without replacement would mean going back to the old standard, which was more or less don't moderate and have no liability for user content, or moderate perfectly, because you are liable for content your moderation missed. You would probably also have some liability to users whose content you moderated off, but I don't know that I've seen a case with those specifics.
Well, neither states an end state, only an action, but “defund the police” is both exact and literal as to what is sought, so if you are saying “repeal section 230” is not, then the comparison is poorly chosen.
> On the whole, the Justice Department initiative is worse than an outright repeal of Section 230. It invites internet firms to chase an increasingly elusive quarry of immunity for third-party content while exposing them to a wider range of legal liability.
To quote President Trump, REPEAL SECTION 230!!! [2]. It's not really called sound bite politics if somebody consistently keeps saying something and also tries to do something about it.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-refo...
[2] https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22
Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to.
Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
What's under discussion is whether "the new public square" of Twitter/Facebook/et al constitute the same manner of oligopolistically-provided service that everyone has a right to.
And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.
To what ends? Idk- but I'd say interpretation of the "good-faith" aspect of section 230 is ripe for review.
First, it engages in content-based discrimination. If passed, it'd face immediate First Amendment challenges. It's exceedingly hard to pass a law that discriminates based upon the content of speech.
Second, it's trying to overwrite parts of Section 230 and seems, at least on its face, as blatantly violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
I don't see this going anywhere.
There's no market for a social network just for people in North Dakota, so North Dakota doesn't really have any leverage in situations like this.
