Posts
I keep re-reading section 230 and I can't help but think we've already solved this problem; but lawyers broke the clear meaning and text of the law.
230 is supposed to hold the internet provider harmless from content published by their customers.
The way I read that is as long as you don't interfere with what the customer is publishing, you're a provider and not responsible for the content.
With what YouTube and others are doing with restrictions on publication, they're becoming editors and editors are part of publishing; so they have become liable through their actions.
Let's get this on!
Enforcing 230 like I've outlined would bring back a first amendment-like public square to the internet.
Within this framework one can even create space for content that children should not look at.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.