The audacity to believe that misinformation and otherwise "bad" content would cease to exist if online platforms become liable is insane.
For true liability, platforms would need to verify the ID of every user, essentially making the government completely control the content of the internet.
Absolutely ridiculous and honestly not even feasible.
I didn't watch the episode. But, I don't think the effect of repealing 230 is in dispute. It would make hosting content you didn't write unfeasible. The questions is whether that is a good thing or not. And what new rule would replace it if any.
Personally, I think even a complete repeal with no replacement would be a good thing. The vast majority of social networks, forums, comment sections, and other public spaces online are a cancer that are destroying our society.
And censorship is a poor alternative. Even if you find yourself on the favorable side of the censors now, inevitably they will come for you.
> The vast majority of social networks, forums, comment sections, and other public spaces online are a cancer that are destroying our society.
I don't think most of the participants in all those public spaces would agree with you. This forum we are having this conversation in right now is such a public space. Do you think it should just disappear?
I realize most wouldn't. But I would accept that trade. HN is a rare exception. And, there would still be sources for tech news: personal blogs, company sites, LWN and other news sites. It's true that news and discussion would flow less freely. But, I think that on-net 230 is doing profound damage to our society.
What trade, exactly, do you think you would be accepting?
If you think you would be trading the absence of HN and rare sites like it for the absence of Facebook and Twitter, or even them rolling back their most egregious moderation policies, think again. Facebook and Twitter won't care if Section 230 is repealed; they can afford enough lawyers to handle any lawsuits thrown at them. In fact they would probably like it, since it would mean even less competition for them than they currently have. So repealing Section 230 would actually make the situation worse, not better.
A change that might improve the situation would be to pass legislation clarifying the boundaries of "good faith moderation", which is the part of Section 230 that Facebook and Twitter are abusing. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be talking about that.
> HN is a rare exception.
Maybe, but the fact remains that it exists, and we can come here and have discussions and not have to even pay attention to all the dreck that is out there. I don't use Facebook. I don't use Twitter. I do use HN and sites like it. Those sites are not replaceable, and they need the protection that Section 230 offers.
> personal blogs, company sites, LWN and other news sites
I don't want "news". I want discussion. And the whole point of Section 230 is that we can have sites like this one where actual discussion can take place, not just someone posting their thoughts on blog A and someone else responding on blog B. The reason sites like this exist is that everyone just posting what they think on their own blog is not a good way to have online discussions. I don't want to give up the added value that discussion forums provide. Nor, as I said above, do I think giving it up by repealing Section 230 would actually improve anything.
> Absolutely ridiculous and honestly not even feasible.
What is not feasible about this? Anonymity, in particular, is not assured. Establishment media routinely publishes think pieces about why we might want to outlaw anonymity.
I don't know about the feasibility comment. Based on what the NSA already does, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to expand those sorts of programs. Not that I would support that.
For true liability, platforms would need to verify the ID of every user, essentially making the government completely control the content of the internet.
Absolutely ridiculous and honestly not even feasible.