What impact would a repeal of Section 230 have?

[Nexus2]

I have to confess I'm not familiar with it. I reflexively assumed that if Trump wants it gone that its probably a good thing its there.

[James48]

1. You are correct.

section 230 provides that internet hosting companies are not responsible legally for the content others post up there. For example, if a Twitter user calls Donald Trump an asshole, Section 230 treats it as the responsibility of the posting person, not the Twitter company.

He started screaming about Section 230 recently when “DiaperDonald” was trending on Twitter. He wanted to sue Twitter and make them hide “DiaperDonald”. Section 230 prevented him from being successful in a suit against Twitter. He has to sue each individual poster individually. That’s too hard to do for DiaperDonald.

[wishstar]

2. Repeal would open door to Trump and rightwing to sue websites over posted comments they don't like

and force websites to spend money defending themselves from baseless lawsuits. End result could be websites shutting down or severely limiting what commentary is allowed to be posted.

[Massacure]

8. Just to play devil's advocate, it cuts both ways.

Without Section 230, Twitter becomes liable for the Donald Trump's conduct on the platform. If Twitter had to fear being sued by every reporter, civil servant, and politician Trump tweeted stupid shit about, they would have banned his ass a long time ago.

[marylandblue]

3. Make it harder for sites like DU to operate.

Every time a DUer says, "The Republicans are a bunch of meanies," the RNC could sue DU for damages. They would likely lose most cases, but the legal costs would kill this site.

[Klaralven]

14. A site like DU would become almost impossible

It would have to -

- establish a poster's real identity as part of sign up, and

- contractually establish that the poster is liable for legal costs and damages awarded against the site due to the poster's communications, and

- require that the poster have liability insurance to cover those costs.

[Deuxcents]

4. Thanks

I’ve been hearing about this n really didn’t understand .. I’m still unsure..if a complaint is issued, is there a commission or recourse ...or is this some sort of censorship? I can complain about what’s on tv but I change the channel..anything like this?

[RockRaven]

5. Well, it would make Twitter and Facebook *more* likely to ban people like Trump and his klan.

But even then, Section 230 is not the end all be all of defamation law, so the apocalyptic statements about its repeal are somewhat overblown.

You know how everyone complains about old people in Congress not understanding modern things? Well, Section 230 was written in the mid-90s. Try to remember what then-septuagenarians understood about the internet back in 1996 or so.... And imagine how useful that understanding would be in 2020-something.

Section 230 should be updated ANYWAY. Independent of Trump demands. But if ditching it gets some checks out... Fine. Then make sure the tech/telecom/social media companies who care so much hold the Repukes responsible for the repeal because McConnell insisted on its inclusion in the bill.

[TigressDem]

6. Maybe to get back at Twitter and Facebook for calling him on his crap?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-so-many-lawmakers-want-to-repeal-it/


Section 230 provides legal immunity from liability for internet services and users for content posted on the internet.

[TigressDem]

7. This COULD bite him in the rear, bigtime though. They made a new platform where they can lie 24x7

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/11/24/21579357/parler-explained-twitter-facebook-censorship-donald-trump

As it’s grown, Parler has become a way station for hate speech and misinformation that Twitter and Facebook wouldn’t allow. The site is also where many Trump supporters are spreading the false narrative that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.


SO if they can be sued for content of their users, then we can do a group lawsuit against them for allowing their users to try and steal an election with fake evidence, doctored and misinterpreted information.

[Frasier Balzov]

9. What would happen to Devin Nunes's Cow? n/t

[TuskMoar]

10. Everything on the Internet Would be "Produced" and Screened by Attorneys Prior to Publication

That means any websites relying on comments or user generated content would die.

Democratic Underground
Daily Kos
YouTube
TikTok
Twitter
Facebook

and many many others are based on user generated content. I could say something horrible or make a terroristic threat here on DU and the website itself can not be sued. They may be obligated to reveal my identity to the authorities (although that is debatable). Repealing Section 230 would make Democratic Underground culpable for any post that I make.

Also on a related but slightly different point, try to imagine the shear amount of work it would take to review every single video posted on YouTube or tweet on twitter. Most of these companies use AI to monitor the user generated content. More, in spite of what SciFi might lead you to believe, AI is not very good and makes mistakes. Savvy users can game the AI algorithms. It is a monumental task to monitor the content on these websites.

[regnaD kciN]

11. It isn't just a matter of specific websites, either...

Most places (don't know about DU) aren't big enough to afford to own and maintain their own servers, but are hosted by various large-scale hosting companies. For example, my Raven Falls Photography site is on JustHost.com. Those companies would also be liable for anything that appeared from a website using their services. So, if I'm DemocraticWayAboveGround.com, and I'm being hosted by BigServerFarm.com, they would also be potentially responsible for anything someone might post on DWAG. It doesn't take too long to imagine what might follow, but it probably would entail companies like BigServerFarm.com requiring advance permission for someone to set up a website there. You'd have to describe in detail what your site was all about, and have them run it by their attorneys to determine the risk in allowing you to have that site. And, in most cases, even the slightest suggestion that you might have content that someone with enough money to hire a lawyer might object to would be enough to elicit a "sorry, not here."

[beachbumbob]

12. this is a 2 edge sword as it would apply to such entities as Parler, and other RW sites, I say go

for it, agree and then FORCE GOP NOT to support McConnell;s poison pill. I have no problem with holding ANY media or webhosting site accountable, and if they get shutdown, thats ok with me

[Karma13612]

13. Then we

Probably would have to say good bye to DKos and DU?

That would stink.

[Nexus2]

16. It does fit him, he's got a fan base and loves appearing in media seemingly almost nothing else.

Last edited Thu Dec 31, 2020, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)