Why do people want to repeal 230? It would make any site with user generated content completely neutered and things like Parler or gab would be sued to oblivion immediately
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.
One is the key examples that highlighted the need for this was Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfour's company suing Prodigy for allowing users to talk negatively about it on message boards.... and winning! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Pr...
> 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
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.
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.
At some point, this line of thinking will culminate in jailing dissidents and denying them basic services like public transportation. Wait that's already happening, with transit unions asking to create no ride lists (https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no...). And the supporters of such policies actually feel they hold the moral high ground to criticize the CCP for social credit scores.
I also don't get why people keep claiming "you don't get to do X with a private business". We regulate private business all the time. If you disagree, then lift all the COVID restrictions and let every business open up. Or remove regulations from existing utilities, from airlines, from financial services, etc. Or let a private business refuse to bake a cake. Otherwise, drop this trope because it is trite and unhelpful.
Ultimately the reason why the "private company" argument does not work is because there is no real choice or competition at all for the tech companies. First, social media companies have little competition due to the moats of their network effects. Second, to the extent there is competition (say between Apple and Google's app stores/mobile phone platforms), there is indirect collusion because these companies all exist in Silicon Valley and reflect the political culture of their headquarters - which is why they make the same decisions on the same day. Third, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and likely others are way too big and in a sane world would need to be broken up on anti-trust grounds. Fourth, Facebook and Twitter are the public's digital town square. The mere technicality of them being private is a poor excuse for recognizing their role as a public utility. They should be regulated to carry all speech that is not explicitly illegal.
Also known as "learn how to build servers".
Private businesses don't have to bake the cake. Equating gay discrimination to online opinions is not genuine. Having regulation does not mean you should regulate everything.
You're conflating private companies with government. Private companies can tell you to pound sand if you say something they don't like, that's their right same as any individual. Government cannot come after you for your speech.
Private entities doing this is very good reason why government does not at all have to be involved nor should be.
People that don't respect this explicit difference are wrong, but that does not mean the private companies actions are wrong either.
Lack of essential utilities prevents people from basic operation in society. No electricity means no water which means no sanitation, which becomes a significant public health problem that harms other people. No propane/electricity means no heat, no cooling, which can lead to you freezing in the north or dying of heat in the south.
You're not going to be severely irrepeirably harmed or have your economic freedoms restricted by not having twitter.
Social media companies are too big. Tax the rich, fund a government created version of twitter.