Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

@javi He has to win the primaries.

But I don't think an incumbent has *ever* lost the primary for their party, so we all pretty much treat it like a sure thing.

@avlcharlie It's not a special law for social media. It protects all interactive computer services and their users. That includes video games, websites, blogs, map websites, traditional media, and even operating systems.

The reason those older business models didn't need a S230 of their own was because there was usually someone to hold responsible. You couldn't hold the bookstore responsible, but you could hold the publisher responsible, etc.
But the internet changed everything... it democratized speech and made it so anyone could self-publish, not just who the rich people thought were good enough. And, more importantly, they could do so anonymously. When the aggrieved rich wolf of wall street assholes called their lawyers to complain about someone bad-mouthing them, they couldn't identify the speaker, and there was no publisher to go after... so they went after the distributor of the speech... which created a terrible precedent, essentially saying that every website, including the family-friendly defendant, had to allow every racist troll, every boner pill spambot, and all porn on their platform, or else they became liable for the content of the users on their forum and the wolf of wall street could successfully sue them.

This was recognized as such an affront to justice that both political parties quickly rallied together and passed the bipartisan Section 230 to prevent it from happening again.

The premise is simple, and common sense: You should be able to set the tone in your own house, but that doesn't make you liable for the conduct of your guests.

@avlcharlie Do you believe that about only social media, or do you believe it about everyone?

Should Walmart be responsible for defamation in a movie just because they choose to sell some movies but not others?

Should a grocery story be responsible for libel posted to its public tack board without its knowledge, just because it clears out old posts from time to time?

Does a coffehouse become responsible for the speech of all patrons in its establishment because they put up a sign that says "no politics"?

Should you be legally liable for every post you boost just because you don't boost every post?

We all have a free speech right to curate our own spaces and choose who we want to allow in. If you were to impose the restrictions you describe, then you'd be trampling on those companies' free speech right to disassociate from you.

@avlcharlie In that example, yes, because *you* said it, *you* are responsible.

But with social media, each user publishes their own speech. The company is hosting and amplifying the speech, not saying it themselves.

So, in your example, this is less like writing down what they say and repeating it, and more like just handing them the megaphone, which is a crucial difference. If a social media company actually did repeat your words under their own account, I don't think 230 would protect them, because then the speech would no longer be 3rd party.

@avlcharlie Because "free speech" protects you from government retribution from speech, not private consequences.

In other words, the owner of the space has a free speech right to choose which speech is and isn't allowed on their property.

You have this same right. If I come over to your house, you're free to say "don't talk about religion or you'll be asked to leave." Doing so neither violates my right to free speech, nor makes you liable for the content of my speech, even though you're "selectively filtering" content on your property.

Those rules apply to everyone equally, even social media.

@avlcharlie That's not a "utility-like paradigm"; It's a basic tenet of free speech.

That's why it applies to bookstores just as much as the phone company. It's a fundamentally flawed idea to sue the place where someone was standing when they made their defamatory comment instead of suing the person who made the comment itself.

As mentioned before, such an action would make the entire internet untenable, from wikipedia to email. It would crash our economy, end international commerce, and put marginalized people into real harm by separating them from their support structures.

What you're proposing is like burning down a hospital to prevent malpractice. It's just not a reasonable solution.

@avlcharlie What do you think S230 does?

@avlcharlie Should every bookstore be liable for the contents of every book just because they choose not to sell some? Or do you apply this standard only to the internet?

@YoSoyFreeman The problem is that they don't have to point to your stuff. They can point anywhere in memory.

They're like portals. Making them to places you already know is pretty safe. But if you're crazy, you can do some really unsafe but powerful stuff.

@avlcharlie So every Mastodon instance admin should be responsible for what every one of their users write? Wikipedia should be legally liable for every anonymous contributor?

What you're describing would end user content on the internet entirely.