Post

Not really, it would make it legally intractable for new firms (including Bluesky with its Discover feed) to compete with Musk & Zuckerberg & Tiktok, including on features like "less fascism". It would also make it a lot harder to deliberately surface less popular or less frequent posters.

The purpose of 230 was to free websites from responsibility for harmful 3rd party postings. It is what allows the algorithms to remain unchallenged and unexamined. If websites are responsible for postings, that is worse for X and Facebook and better for responsibly moderated Bluesky

That is… very wrong. 230 is to promote innovation, including in moderation, by not holding sites liable every time they got moderation wrong. Pre-230, the liability shield was not to moderate (can't be liable because they didn't look). Every "responsibly moderated" site *will* make errors.

2 reposts12 likes

So, what you get is the algorithm. I’m saying; if you invoke the algorithm, you should be liable. If you’re enabling a network of friends, you’re a common carrier, and not liable. This is what 230 bypasses.

Meta and Google have the lawyers and resources to continue hosting user-generated content, likely in a severely restricted manner, if liability shields are removed. Startups, including firms like Bluesky, do not, and it's a huge financial risk for investors. Bye-bye innovation.