[HN Gopher] Sunsetting Section 230 Will Hurt Internet Users, Not...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sunsetting Section 230 Will Hurt Internet Users, Not Big Tech
        
       Author : pcvarmint
       Score  : 27 points
       Date   : 2024-05-20 23:42 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
        
       | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
       | "The law is not a shield for Big Tech."
       | 
       | No, but it protects the public from the emergence of more "Big
       | Tech" companies and the so-calleed "tech" companies, hoping for
       | an "exit", that they they acquire to stay dominant in perpetuity.
       | 
       | Google's lawyer argued to the US Supreme Court that Section 230
       | is what allowed it and other "Big Tech" companies to grow so
       | large.
       | 
       | Section 230 protects centralisation. An absence of Section 230
       | might help decentralisation.
        
         | dchftcs wrote:
         | 230 may have helped Google grow big, but it also helps small
         | operators from being liable for something they can't have
         | resources to police. The fallacy in your argument is this:
         | https://www.dhmo.org/
        
         | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
         | Correction:
         | 
         | s/but it protects/but its sunsetting would protect/
        
       | o0-0o wrote:
       | I remember the Internet before 230, and it was fine.
        
         | beardog wrote:
         | Sesta and fosta reduced 230 a bit and had a measurable impact
         | on web freedom. Craigslist removed personals, most notably.
        
       | beardog wrote:
       | What impact would the loss of 230 have on p2p? Would a bitcoin
       | node operator become liable for criminal transactions people
       | make? Would Tor nodes become even riskies than they are to run?
       | Would participating in the torrent DHT become risky even if I
       | only torrent Linux isos?
        
       | hedora wrote:
       | If they sunset Section 230, they should also sunset the entire
       | DMCA.
       | 
       | That law was a compromise between giving copyright holders all
       | sorts of new powers (DRM, takedown notices, etc), and allowing
       | tech companies to create monopoly platforms (via Section 230) by
       | making it legal( _) for them to centralize speech (and therefore
       | censorship) on their platforms.
       | 
       | Without the DMCA, we wouldn't have sites like YouTube or
       | Facebook, and I argue that'd be a good thing. Instead, people
       | would need to self-host their videos, etc. The price of that is
       | approaching zero, but software hasn't made it easy enough to go
       | those routes (and economic incentives prevent companies from
       | investing in such things).
       | 
       | Anyway, the DMCA without Section 230 will have the effect of
       | further centralizing control over online speech. It won't end
       | well.
       | 
       | (_) it was technically legal before the DMCA, but only if you
       | were willing to take on unbounded legal liability.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-05-21 12:02 UTC)