I don't know why people think repealing this will help things. From the right-wing perspective, where they feverishly imagine they are being censored, it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous. It would increase, not decrease, censorship.
From the left wing, they may be happy with less disinformation and "harassment", but they will be sad when their own disinformation and harassment is also blocked.
it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous
Why? If CDA 230 were dialed back to protecting user posting of any legal content, then they could let libelous/slanderous/dangerous stuff stand. As long as its legal. Right now, if they are allowed to curate any material, then I can sue them for posting legal but offensive or objectionable material. They could have stopped it. They chose not to. So it's their responsibility. And if they select whose opinions to censor, they are taking a political stand. So there's the whole campaign and election law minefie
No, you can't sue them for it. The whole "if the company censors anything they lose CDA230 protections" thing is false. They can curate your material as much as they like, it says it right in CDA230. This is why the right wing is pissed.
CDA 230.. (Score:2)
I don't know why people think repealing this will help things. From the right-wing perspective, where they feverishly imagine they are being censored, it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous. It would increase, not decrease, censorship.
From the left wing, they may be happy with less disinformation and "harassment", but they will be sad when their own disinformation and harassment is also blocked.
It also raises a constitutio
Re: (Score:0)
it would obviously make twitter/facebook/etc... completely clamp down on anything even vaguely libelous/slanderous/dangerous
Why? If CDA 230 were dialed back to protecting user posting of any legal content, then they could let libelous/slanderous/dangerous stuff stand. As long as its legal. Right now, if they are allowed to curate any material, then I can sue them for posting legal but offensive or objectionable material. They could have stopped it. They chose not to. So it's their responsibility. And if they select whose opinions to censor, they are taking a political stand. So there's the whole campaign and election law minefie
Re:CDA 230.. (Score:3)