Stoller provides an informative history of the Section 230 exemption, which was finally knocked down this week by a circuit court decision.
Section 230 was ALWAYS wrong. The distinction between a publisher and a carrier is perfectly clear if you understand what Press Freedom means. The standard misconception is that a publisher is free to say what it wants. Not true. A publisher is not a sayer. A publisher is a censor. That’s exactly what makes it different from a public square or the telephone company. A platform that NEVER censors is a carrier.
Internet platforms were ALWAYS publishers. Stoller says the original law was passed in the era of Compuserve, and the law was bought by the early tech companies. I used Compuserve heavily in the ’80s and ’90s. Every forum had a moderator who was constantly watching what you wrote, and I got in trouble with the moderator a few times.
The newer platforms censor all the time to prevent all departures from DNC talking points. They are PUBLISHERS because they censor.
Stoller concludes:
= = = = = START STOLLER:
The business model of significant corporate actors today, from Google to Meta to TikTok, relies on them being immune from liability for what their users say even as they serve targeted advertising. That business model, of “keep ‘em swiping,” is now in jeopardy. With the Third Circuit splitting with how most other judges have interpreted Section 230, and using the recent NetChoice opinion to do so, policymakers will now have no choice but to start working through problems in Section 230. This case will get appealed, and it’ll likely go to the Supreme Court.
= = = = = END STOLLER.
About fucking time.
Polistra's Mill 