If you don't want companies to be sued for libel, then they should also be forced to remove their editorial controls. No more algorithms, no more content moderation, no more banning, etc.
You can't have it both ways.
The only thing Section 230 did was protect large corporations by removing their liability for hosted content, thereby enforcing generic corporatist speech. It did NOT protect speech on the internet.
Do you really think removing Section 230 would lead to more speech overall on the internet? Without Section 230 protections, the companies that would choose not to moderate at all would externalize content moderation into self-censorship (why would I continue posting on Hacker News if Hacker News became like 4chan? also, such companies wouldn't be able to remove libel!) and the companies that would choose to moderate would ban everything that could be interpreted by anyone as legally controversial (have you never witnessed commenters on Hacker News making might-be-defamation-might-not about famous figures, including but not limited to politicians?). (No matter how hard you try to make an objectively clear rule to determine what is unprotected speech, you will never eliminate the existence of speech that is unclearly unprotected or protected.)
Also, skim "Why Section 230 Is Better Than the First Amendment" by Eric Goldman [1].
> Companies hosting libel should be sued, because the same companies also have editorial control over their content.
> If you don't want companies to be sued for libel, then they should also be forced to remove their editorial controls. No more algorithms, no more content moderation, no more banning, etc.
Hacker News has algorithms, content moderation, and banning. How are comments ordered? How are pages on the front page ordered? Why are most dead posts and comments unsearchable even when you have showdead on? (Well, because HN's Algolia search doesn't know what showdead is.) What happens to someone who repeatedly breaks HN guidelines? Should Hacker News be sued because every week (every day?) a user on Hacker News who isn't banned yet is posting defamation about someone?
> The only thing Section 230 did was protect large corporations
No, it did not. Exhibit A: Hacker News, and any social media website smaller than it. Exhibit B: Barrett v. Rosenthal [2].
> If you don't want companies to be sued for libel, then they should also be forced to remove their editorial controls.[...]
> You can't have it both ways.
It's "both ways" in the same sense that by default a family can both let a convicted adult family member continue to live with the family and not be liable for that family member's crimes. Each family member is liable for their own crimes. A family can both kick an adult family member out of the house and not be liable for that family member's crimes. A social media company is liable for its own unprotected speech. A social media user is liable for their own unprotected speech.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351323
The only thing section 230 did was protect large corporations. It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.
This can already happen right now. Nothing about Section 230 hinders or prevents people who would make the hypothetical "lots of smaller sites hosting content with their own individual editorial controls" from making them while Section 230 continues to exist as is.
> Withdrawing Section 230 would lead to more free speech, not less.
You have not tried to refute most of the claims I made in my previous replies. Of the claims you do attempt to refute (e.g. whether removing Section 230 will result in less speech), I feel that you are missing steps in the chain of consequences.
> It did NOT promote free speech, as the Guy Christensen episode yesterday showed.
As I stated elsewhere, YouTube has both a First Amendment right and a Section 230 immunity to ban Guy Christensen (to the extent that a government actor/agency does not coerce YouTube into doing so).
