> You can do light moderation and we'll grant you exemption.

Another article about Section 230, another top-rated post on HN that's wrong about its origin. Section 230 was always designed from the start to allow companies to moderate legal content. "Light" moderation was never part of the equation.

Look, the people who literally wrote and sponsored Section 230 are still alive today and they are open about what their motivations were, and yet still every single time this subject comes up the top-rated comment on HN is some completely fictional notion about how Section 230 was based on an assumption that feeds wouldn't be algorithmic or wouldn't censor anybody.

And it's just factually wrong, and I don't understand why it's impossible to correct. It's difficult to have a conversation about the political/social merits of a law when people don't even understand the basic factual information about why the law exists.

Imagine if every time an article about Linux came up the top-rated HN post was someone saying that Linux was never really designed to be a desktop OS, it was always intended to just be used on servers and only on servers -- and it didn't matter if Linus Torvalds himself was out making the rounds correcting people on that, we still had to have this conversation every time Linux was mentioned. That's how HN discusses Section 230.

Section 230 was never about preventing algorithms. It was not designed to prevent "heavy" moderation. Again, the people who wrote the law are alive today and have explained their motivations.

----

Edit: it's been pointed out (correctly) that I should probably throw some sources on this. Techdirt's article is a little snarkier than I like, but is generally good (https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...), and even the Wikipedia article on Section 230 is a decent place to start looking at 230 motivations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230). There's also a fairly decent book, "The 26 words that made the modern Internet."

In regards to the parent comment, from Wikipedia:

> Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated.

Cox's concern was not that platforms should only do "light" moderation, he wanted a way for platforms to be able to also moderate completely legal but "uncivil" content that would make it hard for platforms to be professional or organized; a "Wild West"

Ron Wyden goes a step further in his recent interviews (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/5/21339766/zuckerberg-priv...):

> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."

And if that's not convincing to you, consider that both Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox have filed an amicus brief on this very case, saying that they believe Section 230 should protect Google (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...):

> The co-authors reminded the court that internet companies were already recommending content to users when the law went into effect in 1996, and that algorithms are just as important for removing undesirable posts as suggesting content users might want to see.

Really not much that can make it more clear than that, the assertion that Section 230 wasn't designed to protect algorithmic recommendations is factually wrong, this is not something that's a matter of opinion.