I guess Mitch really wants to give Democrats more political ammunition in Georgia.
Is there a draft for a section 230 replacement or is it straight removal?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.htmlI don't think people realize how important this law has been to the development of a free internet. It keeps people such as whoever operates this forum (not sure if that would be SMF or Toady or both) from being liable should something illegal be placed by a 3rd party on their website. The last time I'm aware of section 230 status being in the news was when the feds went after the notorious prostitution website Backpage, which yes probably should have been shut due to the existence of a black market leading to more widespread exploitation and mass incarceration.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/09/600360618/backpage-founders-indicted-on-charges-of-facilitating-prostitutionhttps://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/backpagecom-ceo-charged-with-pimping-in-california/287-333983236Section 230 is an immunity law, which generally are interpreted very broadly, including for prosecutors or law enforcement duties. Once it was removed, the website operators were criminally liable for what others had used their site for. Not defending backpage's operators here because it sounds pretty awful, just saying that's the one example I know of offhand where section 230 was removed.
While there is no way to tell how a repeal of section 230 would be handled, does the idea of a foreign troll farm posting illegal material on websites to intentionally bring down platforms of their political opponents seem that outlandish in 2020? Could we say that either of the two major US sides would not gleefully send each other in front of a judge with this?
At the very least it would cause a dramatic redesign of websites that allow user submitted content.
Either way it's an attempt to weaken a free internet, which by the way is one of the US and other governments' great advantages over more restrictive competitors in that when a shitty self centered leader takes power the US public is better prepared to wage a political argument against the paid trolls; moreso with section 230 than without it.
How about instead of this, we do something actually useful for the average internet user, and make it so it's illegal for websites to harvest personal information for sale without consent, with no consent required to use the website.
EDIT: Tried to balance good taste with my deeds by removing focus on adult tubes as an example of sites under the gun if 230 is removed since really it's much broader than that; that was just my guess as to what's going down first post-230, as someone or organization has already done the dirty work the past few years with what appears to be a step- caption flood campaign that is otherwise difficult to explain.