Mastodawn

Derek Powazek 🐐Mar 24, 2023

I wonder if people using mastodon know that, without section 230, no one could legally afford to run a mastodon instance in the US. Section 230 protects what we do here every day. Politicians threatening 230 are threatening free speech on the internet.

Show thread

apple502j Mar 25, 2023

@fraying There are two provisions called Section 230. Although striking down either of them has significant concerns, I think we should at least distinguish between them.

230(c)(2) is the one that shields providers from liability for blocking or removing contents. This is what GOP hates, and this is what every website relies on for moderation.

230(c)(1) is the one that shields providers from liability for NOT blocking or removing contents. This is still useful, because certain states claim that LGBT related contents must be blocked because they are inappropriate to children. 230(c)(1) effectively nullifies such claims.

FOSTA (and perhaps DMCA) is the one to blame here. It created an exception to 230(c)(1), and guess what, people across the U.S. now demand certain "illegal" things to be outside 230(c)(1) protection, and certain politicians use this effort to ALSO dismantle 230(c)(2).

Show thread

apple502j

@fraying First, there's Anti-Terrorism Act at issue in Gonzalez. Blue states might see 230(c)(1) as an issue in enforcing data protection laws. Or the Sherman Act that was at issue with Malwarebytes v. Enigma, notable for Justice Thomas's dissent. While hate speech laws are probably unconstitutional anyway, 230(c)(1) also shields companies from hate speech related liabilities, which I understand some of you don't like.

But then there is the other category of things. Things like SLAPP suits, copyright trolls, and subjects like "critical race theory" or LGBT people's existence that GOP claims is discriminatory or obscene. If 230(c)(1) did not exist, the platforms are forced to censor everything except maybe cat pictures, and you can't sue the platform for the removal.