How to be wrong about Section 230 in one paragraph. 
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1406114525284376579
To explain, I suppose:
1) No, Section 230 wasn't originally designed just to let websites remove pornography. Porn was the target of the rest of the CDA, which was held unconstitutional. 230 was intended to make it easier for sites to decide what kind of place they wanted to be.
1) No, Section 230 wasn't originally designed just to let websites remove pornography. Porn was the target of the rest of the CDA, which was held unconstitutional. 230 was intended to make it easier for sites to decide what kind of place they wanted to be.
2) There's no "serious argument" that Section 230 only applies to "obscene, violent, or equally valueless content." At all. And "equally valueless" is a phrase entirely without meaning or legal import. The point is that sites can decide for themselves what content to allow.
3) Early lower court decisions didn't "expand the accepted reading of Section 230." That implies the courts had been holding one way, then started holding something broader. That's false. Early decisions certainly influenced how 230 was applied, but hey didn't "expand" anything.
4) Section 230 is far from obsolete--it was in fact an unusually prescient provision, and its authors have said that it is doing what it was intended to do.
People should really stop writing about topics they are woefully uninformed about.
People should really stop writing about topics they are woefully uninformed about.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
