1/ Last week, two business school profs tried their hand at #Section230 and the First Amendment. It went about as well as you’d expect.
They claim that 230 conflicts with itself, but that’s because they don’t understand that law, or how it works.
hbr.org/2021/08/its-ti…
They claim that 230 conflicts with itself, but that’s because they don’t understand that law, or how it works.
hbr.org/2021/08/its-ti…
2/ They make bold claims without backing them up about how social media platforms don’t have incentive to protect their brands by moderating content. In reality, platforms are widely held accountable for content they allow, and respond to public pressure all the time!
3/ If you accepted this statement uncritically, it might seem persuasive. But that “consensus” doesn’t actually exist. Democrats want platforms to remove *more* content, and Republicans want them to remove less.
4/ They take a proposal for amending Section 230 as “good,” but predictably fail to grapple with any of the nuances of practicality or feasibility.
5/ And as if to drive home the point that they simply don’t understand what they’re talking about, they get the First Amendment very… wrong. There is no First Amendment exception for speech that “induces harm” or even “encourages illegal activity.”
6/ There’s room for good faith debate, but making baseless, exaggerated claims and regurgitating others’ ideas does little to actually advance any meaningful dialogue.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
