Sean Malone on why it's a bad idea to repeal CDA S230 protections:
"Anyone can be a publisher or a platform depending on the context.
The argument people make is that Facebook is acting as a publisher by choosing which speech is or is not acceptable but claiming immunity like a platform which should be content neutral.
Legally speaking, this distinction actually *does* make sense and it's not really a special privilege imo. I should not be liable for stuff you write in a comment on my blog. You should be. Just as I should be liable for what *I* say on my blog.
Problem is, if I start moderating the comments on the blog, I'm being selective and taking a proactive role in which comments are or are not allowed - meaning, I'm making an editorial choice.
So the rub is this: If I'm making an editorial choice, am I now acting sufficiently like a publisher so as to be liable for those comments?
I don't know. Maybe.
That's the issue.
Repealing Section 230 would treat all speech on social networks as if it was intentionally published by Facebook or Twitter or whatever. We - as users - would, in essence, be unpaid staff writers for Facebook Magazine. And if you said something that is legally actionable, such as calling Nicholas Sandmann a white supremacist when he was not, Nicholas Sandmann could sue the $761 billion dollar corporate entity "Facebook" instead of just suing Cole.
This doesn't really make sense, unless Facebook is being so controlling over what is or is not on their platform that it is tantamount to editorial judgment.
The argument here is that Facebook has crossed that line.
And OK... Fine. Maybe they have.
The problem *I* have with people's call to repeal Section 230 is that it puts a ton of other websites at risk for no reason while strongly incentivizing Facebook and other social networks to maximize their editorial control instead of minimizing it.
So... The issue of Section 230 is a real one that is complex and worthy of discussion. It just wouldn't have the result people hope. "
"Anyone can be a publisher or a platform depending on the context.
The argument people make is that Facebook is acting as a publisher by choosing which speech is or is not acceptable but claiming immunity like a platform which should be content neutral.
Legally speaking, this distinction actually *does* make sense and it's not really a special privilege imo. I should not be liable for stuff you write in a comment on my blog. You should be. Just as I should be liable for what *I* say on my blog.
Problem is, if I start moderating the comments on the blog, I'm being selective and taking a proactive role in which comments are or are not allowed - meaning, I'm making an editorial choice.
So the rub is this: If I'm making an editorial choice, am I now acting sufficiently like a publisher so as to be liable for those comments?
I don't know. Maybe.
That's the issue.
Repealing Section 230 would treat all speech on social networks as if it was intentionally published by Facebook or Twitter or whatever. We - as users - would, in essence, be unpaid staff writers for Facebook Magazine. And if you said something that is legally actionable, such as calling Nicholas Sandmann a white supremacist when he was not, Nicholas Sandmann could sue the $761 billion dollar corporate entity "Facebook" instead of just suing Cole.
This doesn't really make sense, unless Facebook is being so controlling over what is or is not on their platform that it is tantamount to editorial judgment.
The argument here is that Facebook has crossed that line.
And OK... Fine. Maybe they have.
The problem *I* have with people's call to repeal Section 230 is that it puts a ton of other websites at risk for no reason while strongly incentivizing Facebook and other social networks to maximize their editorial control instead of minimizing it.
So... The issue of Section 230 is a real one that is complex and worthy of discussion. It just wouldn't have the result people hope. "