Derek Powazek 🐐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.
Ian McLean@fraying Can't there be something better in between, that brings the legal responsibilities of a company more in line with their ethical responsibilities?
@ianmclean that’s literally the point of 230
@fraying But now we have giant corporations relying on it to avoid consequences for the harms done to and by their users and society when their algorithms railroad them into hateful, extremist content etc that they would otherwise not see and did not seek out intentionally. Is that not a sign that the law needs to be revisited so that it continue in effectively fulfilling its intended purpose?
@ianmclean no, it’s a sign that we need to punish the companies and create privacy protections for Americans. We’re blaming the wrong law for the problems!
@fraying Do you mean it'd be better to create new legislation to stop entities hiding behind Section 230 to excuse their unethical behaviour, rather than changing Section 230 itself?
@ianmclean yes. 230 is a foundation. We have many laws that should be in place to protect Americans. But those that want to get rid of 230 want a web where free speech is impossible.
@fraying Oh, right. Now that I understand your position properly I agree with you. I thought at first you were just saying "Before 230 things were worse, so we need to keep everything exactly how it is now".
@ianmclean oh hell no! We are far from done. I just don’t wanna go backwards.