I really, really don't want to have to talk about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. These assholes are going to make me. https://twitter.com/TonyRomm/status/1265838389644996610

The Communications Decency Act is a 1996 law that was intended to regulate porn on the internet.

They claimed it was about protecting children from "indecent" and "offensive" content.

It's worth pointing out that I might've finished that call if foster care was safer, if the system didn't routinely kill children.

They didn't actually give a single fuck about actually protecting kids.

In exchange for criminalizing vast swaths of speech on the internet via outlawing indecent and offensive content* the CDA included a "safe harbor" provision known as Section 230.

*which the US Supreme Court would strike down in Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844 (1997)

Imagine I really, really, really hate my neighbor, Stece. I think he's a no good, dirty, rotten liar. So I dial into AOL, find a chatroom Stece really likes, and tell everyone that Stece molests goats. I'm lying. But they believe my factual claims and shun Stece.

His wife leaves him, his employer fires him.

I've defamed Stece by putting those lying words up on AOL – AOL could be held liable for publishing my defamatory statements.

That's where Section 230 comes in...

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides:

"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."

What does that mean? Stece couldn't sue AOL for defamation on the basis of my goat claims in the chatroom.

It's a safe harbor for internet service providers and platforms - like twitter & facebook & wordpress & etsy & every single site - for the content their users publish.

Republicans are threatening to strip @twitter of the protection of Section 230 of the CDA as retribution because @twitter acted responsibly in flagging one of Trump's lies by providing fact checking.

Stripping @twitter of the protections of Section 230 would, essentially, destroy @twitter.

Every time a Stece is defamed, they'd be able to *sue @twitter itself*

(Interestingly, Trump routinely engages in defamatory conduct via @twitter.

If Congress were to revoke Section 230, at least with respect to twitter, lots of folks who have been defamed by Trump's tweets could sue @twitter. )

Trump is being sued for defamation. Twitter could ALSO be sued for defamation. But Section 230 prevents @twitter from being sued because Trump posts actionable content. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776050542/columnist-who-accused-trump-of-sexual-assault-is-suing-him-for-defamation