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?

If I crapflood a tweet with replies of meatspin.gif am I protected from intervention by Twitter?

Porn I think has a slightly different set of rules around it, so porn might still be able to be removed. And bans might still be allowed (it's like a library deciding not to have a book)

Wait now. Removing porn is moderating.

Spam would be be allowed, but it doesn't mean the user cannot have mute and block features

Except the president.

Removing illegal posts is not moderation by the platform, and it they don't claim the to be a porn site

What I'm trying to get at here is that there are lots and lots of ways that this can go wrong and we need to consider them.

Yes ^

If you want to see what 'no moderation except illegal stuff' looks like, go to /b/.

Right, and adding more laws won't be a problem

Would a site code of conduct be allowed?

Memba wen /b/ was good?

I don't think social media is helpful much at all.

So i don't really care if it dies.

But i think removing laws is better before adding new ones.

Let's not advocate for our own article 13

90% this