undefined | Better HN

0 pointsLatteLazy3y ago0 comments

>Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech.

There is no fundamental reason this is an unchangeable true. A lot of the noise around Section 230 repeal and other laws being passed in places like Texas are designed to alter exactly this norm.

Personally I am not sure if I would change it or not, I am just pointing out that it is far from written in stone...

0 comments

thedougd3y ago

They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.

LatteLazyOP3y ago

Right now section 230 means you can censor without censoring perfectly and not get sued. Repealing it means Facebook are liable for anything posted there IF the censor at all. So Facebook either gives up all censorship (free speech!), or gives up all user driven content (unlikely).

That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations right to censor...

AlexandrB3y ago

I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case.

> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

1 more reply

ok_dad3y ago

Or just stop doing business in {STATE}.

Edit: I previously referred to Texas (re: the comment about laws being passed there, which I think refer to those to restrict de-platforming). What I meant with this comment was more like "if a state passes a law like Texas, it might be easier not to do business there than to comply," which obviously wouldn't work if section 230 was defanged or repealed. I don't think that would ever happen, but who knows.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

thedougd3y ago

They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.

LatteLazyOP3y ago

That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations right to censor...

AlexandrB3y ago

I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case.

> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

1 more reply

ok_dad3y ago

Or just stop doing business in {STATE}.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse