But I'm not sure it would be enough. I think it would open up for the SPLC and well-heeled NGOs to just sue people they don't like to oblivion.

I guess Snowfen was a lair and they have none of those programs right?

We're talking about social media and internet censorship. Not military action.

Bullshit, all government action is military action

And you think somehow not regulating tech censorship somehow removes the NSA monitoring programs?

It won't. Law enforcement will do what it wants regardless.

Removing 230 means they have to stop banning oland editing or be open to be sued into oblivion

Because protection for platform was around to protect libraries before social media

See, you're right, but I also see it backfiring and really helping the really well-heeled organizations at the expense of everyone else.

Infact, 230 was enacted to protect platform censorship from lawsuit

Section 230 would need explicit reform. Something closer to common carrier, which is what I'm arguing.

You're just saying "repeal 230 and no regulation because it's governmnet"

You and Beemann...

No, because it is a bad law

I have less of a headache banging on an anvil. Atleast the anvil can bend and realize when it's wrong.

I'm agreeing. I'm saying "repeal" isn't enough.

A company wanted to censor curse words but not he considered a publisher.

Yes, I've seen your video.

230 was the only part of the entirely shit law to follow

Are you reading what I'm saying?

Can you quote exactly what 230 says

Is this for me or Grenade?

Either or

@SantaSoc not ATM. Busy.

Here's the law. I don't have it memorized.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

@pratel we have free speech because the Constitution limits government power, not grows it.

Free speech is a principle as well as a legal doctrine.

So reading that law, how does it habe a negative impact?

Have*

According to Grenade (we've had this argument before), it essentially allows explicit curation and provides protection from what users post anyway.

de facto allowing tech to have it's cake (perform censorship) and eat it too (be immune from lawsuits based on what people post).

I think ability to sue should perimetered as well then.

On concentrated power: use ctrl+F to find the section with the sentence: "Western Union carried Associated Press reports exclusively"

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/excerpt-the-master-switch.html

----

One idea I like, is that you can voluntarily submit to regulation. If you carry everything without discrimination you get immunity. Otherwise you're open to any lawsuits that might happen.

Because more lawsuits congest the judicial system and what would be small aggregated claims vs issues like mass censorship of humans just like "wham i dont like you".

Well, that would level the playing fields

If all participants in the market have to carry whatever in put there, the brands are equally stained

And lawsuit protection

Simply opening up everything to lawsuits seems to me like a good way to get well-heeled NGOs to use tort as a means of political harassment.

I think it would open up more censorship, not less.

That said, there are venues where you'd necessarily want to be able to curate, I'm not against leaving companies to have a choice.