@evangreer I think this position comes from a place that does not recognize structures of oppression and recapitulates common arguments that fight structural accountability. Sad to see you take this position. More deets in my other posts linked here:
@[email protected] @[email protected] Your reply sounds very yt. It seems to ignore the fact that platforms have monetary gain from hosting of harmful speech, and does not acknowledge the systematizing forces involved here. The “I can’t monitor everyone making me money” defense is weak. Air don’t make money off of transmitting speech. Twitter does. Twitter is a full-hearted participant in the speech, incentivizing it even. I don’t agree in tearing down all liability limitations, but these arguments are poor.
@ex0du5 Your critiques of Section 230 seem to be focused on the idea that many of its defenders minimize the harm done by viral spread of hate speech, harassment, disinformation, etc.
Let me be clear: I do not underestimate or dismiss that harm or the scale of it.
But messing with Section 230 won't reduce that harm. It will amplify it. And create a host of new harms in the process.
This would be a good thing to read to get oriented on why i care about this: https://www.wired.com/story/section-230-is-a-last-line-of-defense-for-abortion-speech-online/
Evan Greer 🏳️⚧️
ex0du5