FWIW, Biden has suggested revoking Section 230 as well. Except the interpretation of this happening is different.
Posted by
Mop (aka rburriel)
May 29 '20, 09:16
|
As previously discussed (by me), section 230 protects internet companies if they take action against false information. Revoking it would essentially make companies liable even if they took action. If Section 230 was revoked, Bery, for instance, would be liable if I called Trump a goat-fucker, even if Bery was alerted to that post and deleted it. Section 230 is a good thing.
Revoking it would essentially stifle all speech since message boards and social media would get shut down for fear that a company would get sued because of what one of it's users did.
So I'm not sure why Trump wants it revoked. I guess because Twitter is doing what section 230 requires of them: removing or policing liableous speech when alerted to it. And Trump doesn't want companies to be policing speech on the internet. He wants anyone to say anything and there be no consequences. OK, it makes sense, even though it's not legally sustainable. He wants to rant and not be muzzled.
Biden wants section 230 repealed because...?
|
Responses:
|
