Hacker News Reader

Comment by game_the0ry | Hacker News Reader

Hillary Clinton went on TV and said we should get rid of Section 230 in order to moderate content. So is it really that surprising that SV made a right turn?

View on HN

This argument doesn't hold water. Hillary Clinton is kind of irrelevant at this point. She doesn't hold any kind of elected office and remains pretty unpopular among lefties after losing in 2016. Meanwhile Trump openly tried to reduce the protections of Section 230 while he was president[1].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-s...

That was back in 2020 when he was banned on Twitter (back when it was still Twitter). I think its fair to say he wont be banned on X.

Donald Trump is strongly against Section 230.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know

SV made the choice before (by accepting money from dictatorships for political influence via social media). Attempts at regulation were a reaction to that.

There's no way the situation can stay like that forever. There will be regulation like there's regulation of TV, radio, press, etc.

Without regulation you don't get a libertarian utopia - you just get oligarchy.

Wait, the libertarian utopia IS oligarchy. So it is all right by their standards.

There's orders of magnitude more libertarians than oligarchs. It's even in the name :)

Most libertarians aren't rational egoists, they are just naive losers oligarchs take advantage of to get more power.

They still firmly believe they'll be the oligarchs, just like lots of people think if they were in medieval Europe they would be nobles or knights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com