Non-malicious. Where malicious is defined from a technical point of view. Also, child porn is banned as that's not legal. Threats can be carried, but they count as threats for prosecution under the relevant statutes.

threats should be protected as evidence

Aside from specific technical exceptions, it means "if you could say it legally in the open, you can say it online"

Exactly.

you can say a threat, but you can get arrested for the action of making it.

Treat social media like the postal service or fedex.

but that would still stay up

Fedex can't refuse to ship your package because they don't like the person sending it.

They can report it if they think you're breaking the law and let the relevant authorities handle it.

i don't see how this is terrible far off from removing their platform protections while acting like a publisher. Now if platform protections are not strong enough to remove censorship then maybe you can add that back in.

but yes, the idea that to be protected from lawsuits, you need to carry all legal traffic, only taking town that which is clearly illegal or at the request of the government, or at least block it in that region.

Because when you say "repeal 230" it sounds an awful lot like just making it an open field for any and all lawsuits and pressure campaigns.

Which is obviously counter-productive.

You also have the issue of enforcement.

there is an assumption that platforms already had protections

Because in practice, there's alot of people too poor to sue.

i assumed you could not sue a library for mein kampf

Sure, but there's libraries that are removing Mein Kampf from pressure campaigns anyway.

now, those laws may need updating wording wise.

actually removing platform protections is a fine end goal by me

i would agree to that

removing platform protections **IF** they act like a publisher

If you just remove all protections, the larger protection racket wins.

thats the key phrase

"Google, there's some difficult speech from person X. We think it's harmful to community Y. If you remove it we won't sue you for Z"

you can sue NY times for what is in their articles. but you can;t sue twitter for what someone says, despite twitter curating their users liek they were an editor

If you don't provide platform protections, you're just turning it into a legal might free for all

removing platform protection would both a) destroy small platforms and b) force large platforms to drastically increase censorship

im ok with legal getting involved

What Atkins said gets it exactly.

it would pretty much mean that social media platforms would stop curating

the left has infinite money and man-hours for tactical lawsuits.

damn

ok so thats a no go then

NLG would be salivating for section 230's repeal.

I would very likely be imprisoned.

@boag if you remove it entirely with no way to get those protections back, it would kill a lot of platforms

so we still have the nebulous goal of "free speech on social media"

you need to allow them to get back in if they allow most or all legal traffic

Killing platforms is not the goal. And any replacements would get sued to hell unless they played nice with the large legal funds.

things like porn are iffy. they are both legal and not legal, depending on the user.