Back

@DeanBaker13
This might be(?) the first time I've seen a well argued case for modifying 230. Still not sure I'm convinced that unintended consequences wouldn't harm more than it would help.

I wonder if @mmasnick has a counter point already...
@GreenFire

@timjan @DeanBaker13 @GreenFire I've done the counterpoint to Dean thing in the past. I can't do it every time he tweaks his proposal. Last I checked he still misunderstood the nature of the 1st Amendment & distributor liability if you removed 230.

https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/

@mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I have responded to Mike's posts in the past. (He seems upset that I modify the proposal based on criticisms -- I plead guilty on that.) Not to rehash everything, but he seems to argue that removing Section 230 protection would raise costs, but somehow not advantage smaller sites that still benefit from it. That seems hard to understand on this planet.

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I gotta admit I'm not even sure what sites he refers to when he's referring to smaller sites. Section 230 helped create the giant social media companies, and because of that, the smaller sites have mostly died.

@david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire if you're going to use that example, how about you talk about Veoh. Veoh was another competitor that actually got sued under the DMCA. And won.

But the cost of the lawsuit was too big and it shut down.

That's the future Dean seems to want.

https://www.techdirt.com/2013/03/15/veoh-wins-important-case-against-universal-music-over-dmca-safe-harbors-again-is-still-dead-due-to-legal-fees/