Post

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

I've seen this question come up a few times, and some of it is answered in this post from a few years ago, but let me try to answer @opinionhaver.bsky.social's question directly since he asks this every time 230 comes up. www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/h...

techdirt.comHello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency ActHello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to resp…
William B. Fuckley@opinionhaver.bsky.social

genuine question, what is the argument against doing this in terms of what would actually happen (not the legal technicalities, the actual real world impacts), and why it would be worse than what is happening right now?

Jeffrey Bane
@bane59.bsky.social

I think 230 repeal would have an impact on large social media sites. Their algorithms would surely be considered part of their editorial voice and could be brought up in libel or defamation cases. And subject to discovery.

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

Such a case would fail under 1A grounds in the end. Under pre-230 law, you needed actual knowledge of content violating the law to be held liable. And no algorithm could have actual knowledge.

0 reposts0 likes

Jeffrey Bane
@bane59.bsky.social

What about the case of an algorithm that is written to promote and amplify certain content. Perhaps even a particular lie. For example, if the algorithm specifically identified "stop the steal" lies and showed that content at a higher rate than other content. The algorithm is part of the lie.

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

Most "stop the steal" content did not violate the law. And it can't be *general* knowledge that "some of this content violates the law." It has to be *actual* knowledge, as in *a human being knew that THIS particular piece of content was against the law*.