>Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed.

It's a section of a law. Specifically, Section 230[0] of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

>You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site.

That's an interesting idea. But it's somewhat problematic for several reasons:

47 U.S. Code § 230 (the section of the law in question) applies to all persons/entities in the United States, and to all third-party communications hosted within the United States. How, exactly, would you implement such a rule?

If I decide to set up a github repo, who and how do I inform that I intend to be a "platform" or a "publisher"?

If I'm a member of a mailing list, quote someone else's words and send it to that mailing list, how do I "register" as a platform or a publisher? This isn't an idle question either. This was an actual case[1] that hinged on one particular email to a particular mailing list.

I host several services via my home Internet connection. If I choose (which I have done in the past) to host a Diaspora[2] pod and invite a few friends and family to join, and maybe even federate with other Diaspora pods, how and to whom do I register as a "publisher" or "platform"?

If I "register" as a platform and I have an argument with my sister in-law, and she says some really vulgar/unkind things on my pod. If I remove those comments, am I now in breach of my "registration" as a platform?

>So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status.

I don't dispute your claim that Facebook/Twitter exert a great deal of influence.

However, Section 230 is not what you seem to think it is. It isn't about censorship, nor is it about freedom of speech.

It is a very specific section of a law that says (paraphrasing):

"I can't sue you for what someone else says." Full stop.

That's it. It's not limited to social networking sites. It's not limited to large corporations. It's not limited to websites (both commercial and non-commercial). It applies everywhere there is third-party content. On a Github repo (think bug reports/feature requests), email mailing lists, IRC channels and any other place where more than one person can share bits.

I'm going to say it again to make sure that it's clear why I say that. Section 230 (c)(1)(this is a direct quote now) says:

"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."

I will now translate that into non-legalese:

"You cannot be sued because of something I (or anyone else) say."

That doesn't mean that you can't be sued for stuff that you say.

Let's say that we take your suggestion and remove Section 230 protections from "publishers" (whatever that is defined to mean). That won't stop people from posting obnoxious/unpleasant/hateful things.

Rather, it will mostly just stop people from maintaining/setting up other sites (like HN) where people can share their thoughts. If HN can be sued for stuff that you or I say (upvote/downvote/flag moderation like we have here would almost certainly force HN to be a "publisher" under your definition), I suspect they would shut down this site almost immediately.

If that were the case, the only folks that could afford to take on that kind of liability would be deep-pocketed companies like, you guessed it, Facebook and Twitter.

So, doing what you suggest would actually make things worse and not better.

There may well be some form of regulation that is required to rein in the influence of large social networking platforms, and you won't get any argument about that from me. In fact, I find such sites to be so offensive that I refuse to use them.

But Section 230 isn't the proper place to implement regulation to reduce their influence/market power.

I hope that this helps you to understand why modifying/repealing Section 230 won't solve the very real issues you're talking about.

And so, I must regretfully inform you that you are wrong about Section 230[3].

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

Edit: Fixed links and link references. Fixed grammatical/usage error.