I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case.

> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

The short answer is it's complicated.

The longer answer is...

There are 2 sections we care about. The first (203(c)1) defines platforms as not being publishers so they're not liable (civilly) for content. That means they don't HAVE to moderate.

But that leaves a problem. As soon as you start moderating, you become a publisher whether you like it or now.

So there is ALSO 230(c)2

>Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

That lets platforms moderate and censor if they want to AND STILL NOT GET SUED when their moderation is not perfect.

Platforms probably have c1 rights anyway, courts ruled on that before 230 was enacted (section 230 is the remains of a bigger law that was ruled unconstitutional because it didn't respect the free press aspects enough)

So without section 230, platforms have 2 options: no moderation OR moderate but eat a tonne of liability.

Section 230 let's them have the best of both worlds: remove things AND don't be held responsible for things you didn't remove.

I should have been clearer that it was c2 that I was referring to.

If c2 were repealed, most platforms would have to stop all moderation. HN would be gone as we know it.

Messy enough?

In theory we could repeal the whole thing, but that has much the same effect as just repealing c2: companies close their user created content or get sued into oblivion by any lawsuit happy citizen.

You can see how this turns into political talking points and mis understandings very easily about how section 230 is both critical the free speech and against free speech and stops companies and enables them depending on the agenda of the speaker...

Or just stop doing business in {STATE}.

Edit: I previously referred to Texas (re: the comment about laws being passed there, which I think refer to those to restrict de-platforming). What I meant with this comment was more like "if a state passes a law like Texas, it might be easier not to do business there than to comply," which obviously wouldn't work if section 230 was defanged or repealed. I don't think that would ever happen, but who knows.

S.230 covers the whole USA.

Yea, I edited my comment, I was talking more about those states which make their own laws which would affect a platform. One of the up-comments in this chain referred to that Texas law that I think is supposed to prevent de-platforming. Section 230 would certainly have widespread effects.

Ah, I see! Thanks that makes more sense.

I think you're right. Basically no user content platform that isn't (heavily) privately subsidised could survive without sec 230. Facebook would either need to charge hundreds of dollars a month per user or close accounts.

I think one of the things that limits our society is that we need complex laws (sec 230 is very misunderstood, the same is true of financial regulation though) AND laws have to be simple enough that voters cannot be misled over what they do. That's a very tight constraint, sort of like building the Apollo project but only 10 year olds are allowed to work on it...