>It is not reasonable to make people guilty by proxy. Someone either did the crime, or they didn’t.
If there is no crime in publishing the content then overturning special protections in section 230 will have no effect.
>If you own a building, and someone writes a bomb threat on a bathroom stall, are you guilty of a bomb threat?
If you have a magazine, and publish letters to the editor that contain bomb threats, yes. A building isn't a publishing business, and these companies are in the business of publishing, but it turned into publishing on computers and suddenly they get a special exemption.
They choose what goes on their platform, who can go on it, what is said. They've demonstrated amply their ability to control speech and enforce policy. Let them have their platforms, let them have the liability like everyone else.
If there is no crime in publishing the content then overturning special protections in section 230 will have no effect.
>If you own a building, and someone writes a bomb threat on a bathroom stall, are you guilty of a bomb threat?
If you have a magazine, and publish letters to the editor that contain bomb threats, yes. A building isn't a publishing business, and these companies are in the business of publishing, but it turned into publishing on computers and suddenly they get a special exemption.
They choose what goes on their platform, who can go on it, what is said. They've demonstrated amply their ability to control speech and enforce policy. Let them have their platforms, let them have the liability like everyone else.
It's all just equal treatment under the law.