Section 230 Challenge: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

22 Responses

  1. It starts out with a lie.

    The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

    Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      You joke, but I was just thinking yesterday about how much the Internet has improved access to quality educational and reference materials. Yes, there’s social media, but we have free access to course materials from top colleges. Wikipedia is far more comprehensive than paper encyclopedias. Slightly outdated textbooks are dirt-cheap on Amazon. A large and growing subset of peer-reviewed research is available for free without a trip to the nearest university library. You can find statistical data on basically everything.

      You have to meet it halfway, but the Internet is a fantastic educational resource if you choose to use it that way.Report

      • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        The true test of mankind will be whether the users of JSTOR can outmatch the flat Earthers and people eating Tide pods. May the odds be ever in your favor.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Having the internet at my fingertips has allowed me to work from home. If I had to have a mathematical or development reference library at hand every time I needed to look up a formula or algorithm…Report

      • The same kind of thing was said in the early days of TV, and turned out to be the sheerest optimism.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          “Scientists could give lectures in front of a blackboard and teach Chemistry or Physics to you in the comfort of your own home!”

          (That said, it is delightful to have Wikipedia.)Report

        • Said by ignorant people. Who didn’t understand how scarce the bandwidth resource was, how much it cost to be a content source, and hadn’t paid any attention to the evolution of radio.

          25+ years ago I was the unpopular guy running around a large telecom/cable company doing demos and explaining why the internet was different. You could lay out the technology paths and show bandwidth would become cheap; the cost to be a content source would be cheap; it was inherently variable bit rate; and it was media neutral.

          BB’s remarks remain accurate. For people who want it — me, for example — there’s a subset of the internet that gives me unlimited access to technical literature, access to lectures by experts on pretty much any subject, music, high-resolution scans of art work, vast amounts of source code, etc. There’s room for all kinds of communities.Report

  2. DensityDuck says:

    people in copyright debates: “the law has to change to fit the times, the Internet is a lot different now than it used to be, it’s important that we recognize how far we are from the situation these rules were written to fit”

    people in pollution and environmental-protection debates: “it’s important to protect the natural world, and if that makes things harder or more expensive then that’s just a price we pay to not wreck everything, and if some companies can’t operate profitably with new rules then that’s unfortunate but true”

    people in Section 230 debates: “the law is the law, it doesn’t matter what’s changed about the world in the twenty-five years since it was written, and if you changed the law then a whole bunch of companies would have to change how they operate and it would be a real problem for them!”Report

    • Jesse in reply to DensityDuck says:

      The point isn’t the law can’t be changed. The point is the changes to the law won’t make the changes cons think they will.

      Removing or lessening 230 protections will only make social media companies more restrictive, not less restrictive.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Jesse says:

        counterpoint: permissive social media is demonstrably not a good thing, and maybe these companies should be more restrictive.Report

  3. Oscar Gordon says:

    Aside from completely shutting down the ability of people to post comments or content, I’m not sure what critics of 230 expect?Report

    • To be able to sue any site that disagrees with them into oblivion. (I’m not saying that belief is rational.)Report

    • dhex in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      bad people will no longer be allowed to communicate* bad ideas, which will fix everything.

      i am somewhat pleased to see that the feints the media was making at “these scary encryptions!” toward signal and telegraph, etc, don’t appear to have legs so far. maybe it’s because a lot of investigative journalists use signal to avoid the baleful eye of gubmints and corps?

      * in a way they can see, but obviously not for real.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to dhex says:

        I think it’s more “Bad people will no longer be allowed to censor good people like the real president.”Report

        • Dhex in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Unfortunately the concept has wider appeal than that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/18/biden-section-230/

          I am hopeful that reflexive partisanship helps spur a realignment on this front, but I’m unwilling to bet on it. But who knows? Weirder things have happened.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Dhex says:

            If both sets of partisans hate it, it’s probably good law.Report

          • InMD in reply to Dhex says:

            One of the things to keep in mind is that 230 is an appendage to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, most of which has been gutted by the courts as violating the 1st Amendment. It wasn’t passed for high minded reasons, but was more to keep the commercial internet from being strangled in the cradle by litigation and also to avoid ISPs being collateral damage in the federal government’s war on online porn. It’s kind of a miracle we have it at all. I strongly doubt many (maybe any) who voted for it would defend it on the grounds that supporters do today. All the more reason to believe that if it’s repealed it will be gone forever.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to InMD says:

              The “commercial internet” was actually doing okay before the CDA was passed. Compuserve even set the precedent that if you didn’t exercise editorial control and merely removed posts that violated actual laws, you were good. What people wanted was the authority to pick and choose what posts they removed while still maintaining a publicly-viewable system, and Cox and Wyden supported this because they wanted system admins to have the authority to delete porn and pro-gay speech without being sued over it. (Remember that it was the Communications Decency Act.)Report