The NO FAKES act has changed, and it's worse

It would also mean the end of HN.

thats also good. online services need to be held responsible for what they host. no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.

what other thing is there that is equivalent to online services publishing user-generated content?

A library, record store, or craft markets are the only physical analogues I can think of.

The online publishing of unedited user-generated content to the open internet may not be a business model that works.

>It would mean the end of Reddit which would be simply glorious

Yeah, god forbid there's a place people talk somewhat freely. They might have ...bad opinions.

Your local telephone pole

>no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.

Except for all kinds of established laws broken by the state itself (e.g. extrajudicial deportations), or "fast and loose" startups like Uber and AirBnB, or any big enough company really.

And when they can't fit through exceptions to the law, they magically pay politicians and buy their own laws.

But god forbid people can talk freely about it. What if they don't have the right ideas about things?

the editorial section of the newspaper?

Not everything has to be a business model

Time to once again post the “You are Wrong About Section 230” article: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

In particular, see the very first bullet point: Section 230 makes no mention whatsoever of a publisher/platform distinction. People like you appear to have invented this dichotomy out of whole cloth and attached relevance to it which does not actually exist.

There is no direct equivalent. The closest social analog is the coffeeshop/bar, but that doesn't quite fit technically. The closer technical fits don't align socially.

Literally anywhere with a flyer stuck on the wall. Or graffiti. Is the railroad liable for graffiti spray painted on trains? (Actually asking)

No, they should just differentiate between curation done on behalf of and under direction by the user, and curation done to shove new content of the platform's choice in front of the user.

Platforms shouldn't be deciding for you what you see, outside of the obvious outright illegal things like CSAM

In all these cases, the person who adds "content" does so without permission from the owner of the thing to which it is added.

All curated by the newspaper itself. The whole point of Sec 230 is that the host does not need to curate.

The people who installed that pole do not actually want you to post things on it.

Talking freely and Reddit don’t belong in the same sentence. Go say something that goes against the zeitgeist. It doesn’t have to be political go express support for the wrong celebrity or cause or opinion on shoes even. It’s a cesspool of brainwashing and propaganda.

No it’s not. It would just remove protections of 230. That means HN can’t hide behind 230 if they don’t action on illegal content (and that doesn’t seem to be a problem)

Anything else is just a slippery slope fallacy

“ No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Seems pretty clear to me man

Shouldn’t have chosen a material so amenable to staples at eye level then with no removal mechanism save for the work of the elements.