@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 ^

So how would taking the protection away be helpful?

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.

https://youtu.be/ocEIq3DHEb4

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?

https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/09/19/legendary-composer-nobuo-uematsu-ceases-work-due-to-health-issues

<: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.

Is spam protected by the first amendment?

What about dick pics?