Someone needs to explain to GOP congress critters how Section 230 actually works.
Without it, anyone running any kind of public forum on the Internet - even a BBS like this one - will be liable for something someone might post on it.
If they think that's going to fix a perceived muzzling of conservative views on social media, they've been smoking crack.
Without 230, there will be even more editorializing of content, in order for these companies to protect themselves from litigation.
The extreme right's new found beloved 'anything goes' Parler will not be able to operate as it does, if Parler can be sued for defamation of character because of a post, or for a death threat.
Even resources like Wikipedia would likely not be able to stay online as anyone who disagrees with information posted on their wiki page would be able to sue.
About the only people who would benefit from killing section 230 would be attorneys.
Facebook and Twitter would probably survive, since they have the money and legal departments, but you can expect some far stricter rules and ban hammers.
Three principles in CDA 230 that make Wikipedia possible
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2017/11/09/c ... wikipedia/
Three principles in CDA 230 that make Wikipedia possible
- FlyingPenguin
- Flightless Bird
- Posts: 32783
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:13 am
- Location: Central Florida
- Contact:
Three principles in CDA 230 that make Wikipedia possible
Christians warn us about the anti-christ for 2,000 years, and when he shows up, they buy a bible from him.
- FlyingPenguin
- Flightless Bird
- Posts: 32783
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:13 am
- Location: Central Florida
- Contact:
Re: Three principles in CDA 230 that make Wikipedia possible
Christians warn us about the anti-christ for 2,000 years, and when he shows up, they buy a bible from him.