Yesterday, @wired published a giant cover story with the headline "Everything You've Heard About Section 230 Is Wrong." Except, that's not really what the piece is about. It basically cherry picks statements by me, @CathyGellis and @ericgoldman and says *we're* wrong.
Unfortunately, the Wired piece does the same, setting up extreme caricatures of our actual positions that makes it easy to dismiss, while failing to probe or challenge views of those who disagree with us (or why their "solutions" aren't actually solutions).
The one point that some have raised in support of the article is that it makes a point that Canada doesn't have 230-like protections in statute, and that user generated content is "alive and well" there. This is extremely misleading and wipes out important context.
The "it's fine" in Canada point removes an AWFUL lot of context and history, which I tried to add back in my response to Wired (this is only a small part of it). https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210506/12170946745/wireds-big-230-piece-has-narrative-to-tell.shtml
I tend to expect better of Wired, which historically has been so much better on these kinds of complex topics. I hope that this is not the trend under its new editor, who vehemently defended the piece on Twitter yesterday.
You can follow @mmasnick.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: