Reply to post: Re: The law of Unintended Consequences applies....

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

Cuddles Silver badge

Re: The law of Unintended Consequences applies....

"In this case, Section 230 probably seemed like a good idea at the time."

This is why it feels a bit harsh to accuse Biden of hypocrisy. Sure, he voted for Section 230 in 1995, but no-one back then predicted how the internet would look 25 years later. Changing your mind on things when the situation changes or new facts come to light is exactly what everyone, not just politicians, should do. For that matter, even knowing he voted for it doesn't tell us all that much; it's entirely possible he could have thought it was flawed or overly broad even back then, but was better than not having anything at all.

Companies supporting a law when it's in their favour and arguing against it when it goes against them is certainly something worth calling out. A politician who thinks a law they previously supported needs changing decades after it was implemented when the thing it governs has changed almost beyond recognition? That deserves applause for being one of the rare times a politician actually seems to be doing their job correctly.

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 © 1998–2021