Somewhat disappointed in the people who are so quick to say that we need to reform Section 230 because "big tech companies are bad," without considering whether or not it would even fix the problem. Too many of my mentions are people who seem to not care about the consequences (and whether or not such reforms would help fix any perceived problem). It's just "company bad, therefore, 230 must be bad."

Think through the details, people.

@mmasnick I've never understood how removing 230 would make any platform more likely to allow vile extremist content. If I can be sued over what you say why would I allow your defaming or inciting speech?

@DARSB1 @mmasnick Because if they do absolutely no moderation they can accurately claim to not know what content is being posted, and so they can't be held liable for it.

230 allows for them to engage in moderation, instead of purposefully not looking so they can avoid liability.

@sashafox @DARSB1 @mmasnick that claim to innocence would not hold IMHO. Moreover, it would not be enough to succeed on a motion to dismiss.

The expensive part of suits/trials is in discovery, which is very early in the process. That is plenty of incentive to moderate even harder (or shut down platforms). Even N*zis after the first couple suits would keep their shit offline/dark to avoid issues.

230 lets a platform go "I have immunity due to S230, dismiss me out of this case as a matter of law" and out they go. No discovery necessary.

@lofh @DARSB1 @mmasnick No, that's why they passed 230. Because before it was passed internet companies had to do no moderation or face liability.
@lofh @DARSB1 @mmasnick Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. was the lawsuit that decided it.

@lofh @sashafox @DARSB1 Sasha is correct. 1st Amendment would require knowledge, and the end result would be companies bending over backwards to avoid knowledge.

It would create an unmoderated hellscape.

@mmasnick @lofh @sashafox I appreciate the feedback and lesson. As a nurse, I'm a terrible lawyer.