[HN Gopher] Why Section 230 Is a Good Law and Why Messing with I...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Section 230 Is a Good Law and Why Messing with It Would Be Bad
        
       Author : speckx
       Score  : 11 points
       Date   : 2026-02-09 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
        
       | tracker1 wrote:
       | I think that censorship should be expressly limited based on size
       | and usage of 230 protections. ex: if you have 10+ million users
       | and you want to cite section 230 protections, you may not censor
       | protected speech, but maybe allow users to opt-in to a "censored"
       | feed, or otherwise limited such as for minors.
       | 
       | I'm mixed, but I don't think companies should have 230 protection
       | _AND_ be able to make express publisher decisions on
       | editorializing content.
        
         | SpicyLemonZest wrote:
         | I think this is one of those things that only ever makes sense
         | in the abstract. How would this rule apply to Stratton Oakmont
         | v. Prodigy? Would it make sense to tell Prodigy that they'll be
         | immune from defamation suits if only they agree to make their
         | offensive language monitoring opt-in and publish a new code of
         | conduct permitting racial slurs?
        
           | tracker1 wrote:
           | I'm honestly not sure... it could also backfire with
           | intentional social groups... such as someone created a social
           | network expressly for progressives or conservatives, where
           | repeated contrarian rhetoric is simply disallowed (for good
           | or bad), for people who want to live in their bubbles, like
           | MSNow.
           | 
           | (last comment regarding MS Now is meant for humor)
        
         | digiown wrote:
         | I'm not sure that would work. How about spam or adverts? That's
         | protected speech. And downranking based on viewpoint is not any
         | different from censoring.
         | 
         | Yeah you can say X but no one will see it.
         | 
         | I can see potentially requiring platforms to moderate in a
         | "viewpoint neutral" way, though, which only applies if you have
         | ~5% of potential customer base as users.
         | 
         | It's similar in spirit to things like the exemption for smaller
         | landlords in the Fair Housing Act
        
       | ocdtrekkie wrote:
       | (Reminder that TechDirt is also a lobbyist Copia Insitute who
       | takes money from big tech clients.)
       | 
       | Section 230 is a terrible law because it exempts one class of
       | business from any responsibility for their actions.
       | 
       | A global company which faces no penalties for allowing malicious
       | and fraudulent content has no incentive to police itself, and its
       | clients live outside the reach of the law. Ergo, they make money
       | on crime and have no responsibility for it.
       | 
       | If we want to fix the Internet, step one is deleting 230 in its
       | entirety, and step two is ensuring a tech platform cannot profit
       | from illegal activity. That means if they sell a malicious ad,
       | they at bare minimum, have to give up that revenue, and ideally,
       | face a penalty for it if they aren't taking adequate measures to
       | prevent abuse.
       | 
       | A true financial risk to tech platforms is the only way to
       | incentivize good behavior.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-09 23:01 UTC)