Silas House wrote:
Fifteen years ago the major social-media platforms barely existed. Was the internet better or worse? The online public square, now dominated by Twitter, was then constituted of independent blogs aggregated by user-curated feeds. Bloggers are publishers, legally responsible for their posts, but the blogosphere was not noted for its blandness. White-hot critique was common, but defamation and abuse were not
I keep coming across the opinion that 230 should be saved and if it is overturned then this would be the end of the internet. However, much like the link here, I am very much of the opinion that holding platforms more accountable should be the way to go if we want a better internet.
A Facebook or Twitter than can be sued for hosting content is one that is over the top in what can be posted to it - the result is a better, more positive experience.
Want to stay into the web and read what your favourite people are saying then we return to the good old blogging days, where speech is more honest and can be held accountable easily. No more hiding, no more click bate and we restrict the level of mis information being spread.
Clearly the reason that Conservatives want to repeal this bill has nothing to do with a safer internet, but I don't think they would really get what they think if they succeed. Perhaps I don't understand this fully but I really can't see a downside.