Casey Newton

And if you delete section 230, you're going to get more of it.

So no, it doesn't make any sense.

I have complicated feelings too, because I want Section 230 to exist so that platforms can host political speech, all sorts of speech.

I think that it creates the possibility for platforms that are very rich and vibrant and fun.

At the same time, there's this 230 case that I paid a lot of attention to as a gay guy about Grindr.

You guys, I'm sure, are familiar with this case.

But basically, there's this horrible ex that's like, I'm going to get back at my ex by posting his photos on Grindr.

And I'm going to send everyone his physical address and say, go to this guy's house.

And he's going to indulge in your craziest fantasies and give you drugs.

and this gets tossed out because of Section 230, right?

They sue Grindr, saying, like, this is awful, you gotta do something, and Grindr is like, 230, and the case goes away.

That seems really awful for the victim of that case.

Like, if I were in that situation, I'd be really mad at Grindr, too.

At the same time...

why should 230 be the thing that gets that person justice?

Why don't we just take online harassment and violence more seriously in this country?

So this is kind of how I square the circle is by saying Section 230 in general does still support the kind of internet that I want.

And for a lot of the harms, mostly not the ones we're talking about today, but for a lot of the harms that do absolutely get enabled and protected by 230, I think we can probably find other ways of addressing the harm.

But here's another thought experiment.

What if the brain trust over at Meta got together and said, what would Instagram look like if it were great for teenagers?