econtwitter.net is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon instance for Economists.

Administered by:

Server stats:

206
active users

@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

@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 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I gotta admit I'm not even sure what sites he refers to when he's referring to smaller sites. Section 230 helped create the giant social media companies, and because of that, the smaller sites have mostly died.

@david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire no, section 230 enabled tons of smaller sites and much greater competition. I did a whole research report on this.

And it enabled SITES LIKE THE ONE WE'RE ON.

@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
Unless I'm mistaken, this site does not sell advertising or personal information, which means it would still have Section 230 protection under my proposal. There are many other similar sites. Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate.

@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire Facebook has literally been running ads non-stop in DC offering to get rid of 230.

@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire That was not EFF's interpretation of Facebook's position. Perhaps they are wrong, but having yet what Facebook put out a couple of years back, it didn't sound like they were pushing for a complete repeal.