Message from @Poppy Rider
Discord ID: 492313164201852938
Telling you, repeal section 230
II would much rather see these sites fall by their own hand so the next sites to rise don't make the same mistake. YT and Twitter could very easily say that they need more gov hand outs to protect the service. This is not good for compation.
@Poppy Rider if you claim to be a piblic square you are a public square, if you want to create a platform for christians then your platform is not really public
So if you create legislation following those guidelines, all any of the companies has to do is stop calling themselves a public square, which would make it pointless.
Im fine with that then they can reap the benefits of not being a public square like not recieving tax dollars
Unless im misinformed on this
If they are receiving tax dollars the I would argue that stop regardless.
@Grenade123 Why do you think repealing 230 is a good idea?
It means they need to stop moderating their platform or be treated as a publisher and therefore liable for what is said.
Basically it makes Twitter liable for slander rather than the person saying it.
Etc
230 protects them from being liable.
If that happens everyone would get banned @Grenade123
And Twitter would be dead
If you take it away it means the sites are responceable for what is said.
No, they are only responsible IF they moderate
Ok that makes sense ^
So if they take one thing down they are no longer protected by the 230?
Basically, if they moderate, they are a publisher, if not they are like a library
Im fine with this then ^
However, banning might still be protected, not sure exactly.
But what about moderating illegal content
And would users be able to block
That would be the governments job to have it taken down
Or they moderate, and are open to lawsuits
230 gives protection to unmoderated sites. Just coz Twitter and FB are playing both sides doesn't mean 230 is the problem. I can't see why repealing it help.
in stead of getting rid of it I think the answer is to enforce it. If twitter wants to curate their site then they are going to be liable for everything. If not, they are protact by section 230.
It seems we already have the laws in place to sort this mess out, they just need to be enforced.
230 does not give protection to unmoderated sites, those were already protected before 230.
There is another series of laws, original to protect like people selling newspapers for being responsible for what the newspapers say, but hold the newspaper publisher responsible for allowing it.
Best take on this
Even better then tims
I didn't know that @Grenade123 . It makes sense when you think about it. OK, thats fine, are you saying Twitter should be classed as a news paper vender?
<:GWfroggyFeelsUpMan:400751139563241473>
Who?
@Poppy Rider if they moderate, yes. If they want to stop moderating they can be classified as a platform (I believe that is the term used now to be equivalent to a library or somewhere hosting these works)
Publisher can get sued for the content in their publication, a platform cannot
At least that is my understanding of previous existing law before 230, where a website was sued for slander and it was argued that since they moderate "foul language" they should be a publisher.
Being prevented from moderating is going to have lots of unintended consequences.