I posted that link before I saw yours.

Thanks for beating me to it.

While it's a shame when the HN crowd takes down a site due to us mobbing it, given the number of folks who are seriously confused about Section 230 I wouldn't mind if techdirt took that hit.

It would save me (and you) from having to post that link every 25 minutes or so.

This is one of the best links I have ever been gifted in a comment section, thank you!

No. You apparently don't.

There is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher" in Section 230.

And you can't "lose" your section 230 protections. Section 230 protects every person and every device in the US. There are no limitations to that.

Because Section 230 isn't what you think it is. The important part says (paraphrase):

"You can't be sued for something another person says." Full stop.

That other person can be sued.

If you personally engage in illegal or tortious activity, you can be prosecuted or sued.

But you can't be prosecuted or sued for what someone else says.

That's Section 230. That's it. Full stop.

I'm pretty sure what GP is saying is that they think it should work differently (to note, I disagree, although my position is that moderation for platforms like Facebook/Twitter, where visibility is off-by-default, should ideally be limited to targeted removal of explicitly illegal content, and there should be some regulation to that effect for platforms above a certain market share by some definition).

>I'm pretty sure what GP is saying is that they think it should work differently (to note, I disagree, although my position is that moderation for platforms like Facebook/Twitter, where visibility is off-by-default, should ideally be limited to targeted removal of explicitly illegal content, and there should be some regulation to that effect for platforms above a certain market share by some definition).

That's as may be. However, none of that is the law.

I strongly agree that Facebook, Twitter, et al have disproportionate influence due to the strong network effects of their user bases.

And I believe that we should take steps to limit that power and influence. However, modifying/repealing Section 230 is not the way to do so.

In fact, reducing or eliminating the protections of Section 230 would have the opposite effect, because only those with deep, deep pockets could continue to operate in a world without Section 230.

I made other suggestions[0] which I think could help by providing other places for people to go.

Any success would depend on folks voting with their feet. Let's make that easy to do and give people a better, more positive experience, with more privacy and choice and less ads and tracking, and people will run away from these monsters.

I'll say it again. Repealing/weakening Section 230 would hurt everyone else much more than it would hurt Facebook and Twitter. In fact, it would significantly harm free speech on the Internet -- which is what Section 230 was designed to (and has done for 25 years) protect.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032