Back

@DeanBaker13
This might be(?) the first time I've seen a well argued case for modifying 230. Still not sure I'm convinced that unintended consequences wouldn't harm more than it would help.

I wonder if @mmasnick has a counter point already...
@GreenFire

@timjan @DeanBaker13 @GreenFire I've done the counterpoint to Dean thing in the past. I can't do it every time he tweaks his proposal. Last I checked he still misunderstood the nature of the 1st Amendment & distributor liability if you removed 230.

https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/

@mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I have responded to Mike's posts in the past. (He seems upset that I modify the proposal based on criticisms -- I plead guilty on that.) Not to rehash everything, but he seems to argue that removing Section 230 protection would raise costs, but somehow not advantage smaller sites that still benefit from it. That seems hard to understand on this planet.

@DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire because I've explained this to you before. The "cost" of losing 230 is disproportionately placed on smaller entities. The "cost" is in having to face many more ruinous legal threats that are RIDICULOUSLY expensive.

Meta & Google have buildings full of lawyers. The cost is meaningless to them.

The cost to smaller sites would put many out of business.

@DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire your proposal removes it for smaller sites too Dean.

Don't lie. You just remove it for those who don't use advertising. Plenty of smaller sites rely on advertising. Without advertising many smaller sites would die.