> In fact, once the social media companies have to assume legal liability — not just for libel, but for inciting violence and so on — they will quickly change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic.<p>If websites are legally liable even for libellous comments made by users, then "anything remotely problematic" will include "any negative claim by anyone about any other person or company". Perhaps the author needs to read:<p><a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...</a>
How many half-baked takes on "revoke S230" can there possibly be. This must be the hundredth one this week. It's not new, interesting, or even a <i>useful</i> proposition.<p>Seriously, if at this point you are proposing removing the most common-sense rule of the Internet ("the one legally liable for making a post is the person who posted it, duh") upon which _every website with a comments section relies_, then I cannot assume you are debating in good faith.
I agree with this position. Too many people seem to be looking for a small "patch" to the law to fix the problems we have today, or just more banning and censorship is the solution (which is permitted by Section 230).<p>I think shielding websites from liability for user comments is just a bad idea. Yes, it would probably mean the end of comments on the internet as we know it. That's the point of the article.