Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Without S230, Twitter and Facebook would not curate or moderate any content - you'd be constantly bombarded by a torrent of spam, vitriol and disinformation.

With S230, companies can remove the worst, most obvious ofenses without fearing being held accountable by the things they didn't find.



That sounds to me like the outcome of both options are:

1) Toxic, awful to use sites with no personalization (custom recommendations, curation, etc)

2) Sites get more careful (and expensive to operate) because they don't want to get sued.

I really doubt #1 is even a tenable business. Who uses a site like that? On the other hand I really like the idea of more careful social media sites.


Under (2), I don't think it's a matter of expense. As a publisher, you'd need editorial control over all users content (literally billions of people).

A publisher platform with a billion users is untennable. There isnt enough money or people in the world to police it.

Maybe the distinction between publishers and platforms is too archaic for digital platforms.


About 1, you can demonstrate that with the various chan sites and with the gab.ai Twitter clone.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: