For example, the people that I know that want “something to be done about [whatever]” don’t want to see Section 230 removed because that would destroy incentive for online service providers to exist, which is our imperfect access to each other. Without Section 230, the ISPs, Facebook, even the game companies providing chat features in games would be liable for everything everybody ever says or does on their sites. Of course, this serves people who want strong government control over things but they sell the idea as a “free speech” idea. But loss of 230 would have GLOBAL impact. As it stands, the reason private companies put ridiculous speech restrictions rules in place is because that’s ‘part of the deal’ – the private company would manage “quasi-govt” duties in exchange for being free from legal responsibility for what people say.

For example, the people that I know that want “something to be done about [whatever]” don’t want to see Section 230 removed because that would destroy incentive for online service providers to exist, which is our imperfect access to each other.
Without Section 230, the ISPs, Facebook, even the game companies providing chat features in games would be liable for everything everybody ever says or does on their sites.
Of course, this serves people who want strong government control over things but they sell the idea as a “free speech” idea. But loss of 230 would have GLOBAL impact.
As it stands, the reason private companies put ridiculous speech restrictions rules in place is because that’s ‘part of the deal’ – the private company would manage “quasi-govt” duties in exchange for being free from legal responsibility for what people say.

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]