If I understand correctly, if section 230 is repealed, all websites on the clearweb will have to enforce much stricter censorship. There will be nowhere to exodus to but maybe the darkweb if someone decides to break the law for the sake of free speech and host an illegal shitposting forum.
That is an
argument advanced by webhosts, ISPs, social media corporations. It's not a
fact per se. In some ways, it's actually more of a
threat to deter the public from touching § 230 (i.e., "if you take away our statutory privilege, we'll punish you by censoring you more, and you'll be sorry").
This is very similar to the arguments/threats Big Business makes when legislators threaten to end illegal immigration, impose tariffs, or close tax loopholes., etc. For example, if we don't accede to Big Business demands for illegal "guest workers" or lower tariffs on their 3rd world imports, Big Business always threatens that "we'll forced to raise prices" and "the costs will be passed on to the consumer." Similarly, if we ever try to raise taxes on corporations or impose labor restrictions, they reflexively threaten to "move our headquarters to a more business-friendly country." Blah, blah, blah. It's the white collar equivalent of throwing a tantrum. Of course these companies can't and won't follow through on their threats, because they want to stay in business. If we deported illegals, imposed tariffs, etc., Big Business might take a haircut, but pretty much every U.S Citizen would be better off, and life would simply go on.
Similarly, tech companies typically threaten to increase moderation, close their comment sections, or quit if 47 U.S.C. § 230 is repealed. Obviously, § 230 is a windfall for anyone in the web-based social media industry, no doubt about it. If it were repealed, the industry would throw a massive bitch fit, and some people/businesses might quit out of spite. But the internet would go on. Yes, social media sites would incur litigation costs like literally every other business does, and they'd have to figure out a way to manage that. And yes, social media sites would have to walk a fine line between publishing defamatory smears and censoring speech. But the best companies will figure it out, and the internet would go on. If Josh quits Kiwi Farms, some dedicated genius will open up the Pineapple Plantation, and he'll find a way to make it work.
That being said, Section 230 does protect
some legitimate policy interests. IMO, it should be amended and improved upon. But there's no reason to give social media sites blanket immunity simply by virtue of their status. As I like to say, "absolute immunity begets absolute impunity."
Ironically, Citizens United more or less legalized what Twitter is doing when it interferes with elections. Prior to Citizens United, Twitter's conduct could have conceivably been prosecuted as illegal campaign contributions.
In your opinion, was that case correctly decided?
