Hacker News Reader

> That's why I think the government should take action.

And do what, exactly?

Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just terminate the contract for simply disagreeing with speech that is protected under the First Amendment.

You're essentially asking the government to compel private businesses to host speech that they disagree with. I don't think that's a viable path.

Specifically with the things I listed - yes, I do. In regards to banking it's not even a free market in the first place.

This change would substantially benefit large providers at the expense of smaller providers.

AWS can afford to be sued for hosting a forum or the costs of a boycott for hosting Stormfront - a smaller provider could easily be wiped out.

Edited to add the following.

Most of this post was wrong. ttt0 is right that section 230 protects providers in the cases I mentioned. TIL about the scope of section 230 provider protection.

Boycotting a company for doing something its legally obligated to do doesn't make any sense. Regarding lawsuits, section 230 is a thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com