Section 230 is Good, Actually, by Jason Kelly

This is the best and most comprehensive analysis of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act we’ve seen, and it reaches a number of conclusions at odds with commonly held beliefs. From Jason Kelly at eff.org:

Even though it’s only 26 words long, Section 230 doesn’t say what many think it does.

So we’ve decided to take up a few kilobytes of the Internet to explain what, exactly, people are getting wrong about the primary law that defends the Internet.

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) is one of the most important laws protecting free speech online. While its wording is fairly clear—it states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” —it is still widely misunderstood. Put simply, the law means that although you are legally responsible for what you say online, if you host or republish other peoples’ speech, only those people are legally responsible for what they say.

But there are many, many misconceptions–as well as misinformation from Congress and elsewhere–about Section 230, from who it affects and what it protects to what results a repeal would have. To help explain what’s actually at stake when we talk about Section 230, we’ve put together responses to several common misunderstandings of the law.

Continue reading→

5 responses to “Section 230 is Good, Actually, by Jason Kelly

  1. This guy’s full of shit. Won’t users be able to sue the shit out of Facebook and Twitter if section 230 is repealed? That needs to happen to take down the monopolies and then we can worry how to foster legitimate competition after these fuckers are ruined financially.

    Like

  2. To continue my thought. FANG interference in the elections are enough reason to ruin these companies by any all means necessary. If section 230 removal means it can happen thru massive class actions then I hope the lawyers gorge themselves feasting on these traitorous companies.

    Like

  3. I know FANG does not include all social media companies. They’re just representative of US company’s that are corrupt and have hastened the decline of America.

    Like

  4. Repealing Section 230 might indeed put the social media giants out of business, or at least completely hamstring there business model. The problem, as the author points out, is that it would do the same thing to SLL and any other site that publishes other people’s content.

    Like

  5. Jay Valentine says technology is changing which may catch the current big tech anti 230ers offguard–>they may fall anyway.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/how_google_falls.html

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.