It's amazing how clueless people are. In this case, the person is clueless about both Section 230 and Libertarians. Section 230 doesn't say what this person thinks, and there's no way Libertarians support the "speech" policies this person wants.
https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1405251735640178689
Everybody suggesting a change to Section 230 doesn't understand Section 230. It's weird how common this is. It's because they don't care what it currently says -- only what it might make it say in the future.
And the thing they want it to say in the future is something something suppress speech they don't like and something something promote speech they do like.
Libertarians believe in two separate things:
#1 speech, even by those you disagree with, is a good thing and shouldn't be censored, not even by private actors
#2 private actors should be free to censor speech they don't like, even when they are bad people for doing so
#1 speech, even by those you disagree with, is a good thing and shouldn't be censored, not even by private actors
#2 private actors should be free to censor speech they don't like, even when they are bad people for doing so
It's a hard thing to understand because non-Libertarians feel if something "should" happen then government "should" make it happen. Libertarians believe lots of things should happen, but government shouldn't be involved.
So Libertarians feel Twitter and Facebook should stop their censorship, but at the same time, would vehemently oppose any law that would try to make this happen, including whatever nonsense people believe about Section 230.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
