Repealing Section 230 means what?


"Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don’t like —whether that’s criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. 

"It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with.

"Think that’s hyperbole? Consider what’s already happening with all of the various attacks on the media and even law firms that have supported Democratic causes.

"Repealing Section 230 entirely would simply give the administration even more power to control online speech. It would give the Trump administration incredible latitude to censor any kind of content they dislike, even if that content would nominally be protected under the First Amendment. 


"With Section 230, if a website (or a user!) wants to defend its right to keep content up (or take it down), winning such a case typically costs around $100,000. 

"Without those protections, even if you’d ultimately win on First Amendment grounds, you’re looking at about $2 million in legal fees. 

"For Meta or Google, that’s a rounding error. For a small news site or blog, it’s potentially fatal. And this includes users who simply forward an email or retweet something they saw. Section 230 protects them as well, but without it, they’re at the whims of legal threats."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hamza Chaudhry

Swarm 🦹‍♂️

Digital ID tracking system