Reply to post:

Section 230 supporters turn on it, its critics rely on it. Up is down, black is white in the crazy world of US law

bazza Silver badge

I think section 230‘A creators assumed we’d also have intelligent contributors, so that there’d not be a problem with junk content in the first place. Oops.

Also back then the freetard ad funded online world we’re now living in hadn’t been invented. Back then if you wanted a service you’d have to pay for it. For example, Compuserve; it costed money to use.

That naturally meant there was a solid link between uploaded content and the poster of that content, via the financial industry’s knowledge of who owns which credit card. Legal Consequences could easily be directed towards the appropriate person.

Can’t do that today with ad funded services. It’s a tough job to convert an IP address into a viable prosecution.

Getting rid of section 230 is the end of free services funded solely by ads. Personally speaking I can’t wait. I’d be very happy to use Google services devoid of ads, tracking, analytics, etc.

And it’s likely cheaper; a direct billing for services rendered is a more efficient way of raising revenue than flogging ads to fund the services, if you have a large user base. Same profit for less infrastructure and staff? Not a bad outcome for the business.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020