To rephrase EFF's argument, if section 230 protections are removed, the legal exposure would simply be too great for any open access platform to continue in any form at all similar to at present. Any content would need to be moderated. It would be impossible to moderate these platforms in anything like their current throughput, so speech will flow to a trickle. Only speech the platforms feel can survive a lawsuit will be allowed to be posted. Or in the words of EFF:
"If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won’t even get started, because they’ll face overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech."
The internet has flourished because it has common carrier protections, like the phone companies enjoy. Remove this and all that goes away.
Should providers be more diligent in removing harmful content? Yes they should, but removing 230 protections will throw the baby out with the bath water.
You state: "Remove the blanket immunity from liability. Period. Yes, it may initially impact the courts, but frivolous lawsuits can and will be dismissed."
This is not realistic. The moment your solution is enacted, these platforms will basically shut down.
A more nuanced approach is stated in this article from the Harvard Business Review:
Your proposal has far reaching consequences. For another take on the subject, here is EFF's statement: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Thanks Seth. I’m afraid I didn’t glean much from that blank other than it being a restatement of the definition of 230.
To rephrase EFF's argument, if section 230 protections are removed, the legal exposure would simply be too great for any open access platform to continue in any form at all similar to at present. Any content would need to be moderated. It would be impossible to moderate these platforms in anything like their current throughput, so speech will flow to a trickle. Only speech the platforms feel can survive a lawsuit will be allowed to be posted. Or in the words of EFF:
"If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won’t even get started, because they’ll face overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech."
The internet has flourished because it has common carrier protections, like the phone companies enjoy. Remove this and all that goes away.
Should providers be more diligent in removing harmful content? Yes they should, but removing 230 protections will throw the baby out with the bath water.
You state: "Remove the blanket immunity from liability. Period. Yes, it may initially impact the courts, but frivolous lawsuits can and will be dismissed."
This is not realistic. The moment your solution is enacted, these platforms will basically shut down.
A more nuanced approach is stated in this article from the Harvard Business Review:
"https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230"
Provide more guidelines, so companies know what level of moderation is required to be in compliance.
I think we have a good solution that's been languishing in committee. More on this next week.
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/2/legislation-to-reform-section-230-reintroduced-in-the-senate-house