Oh, just one of the most famous VCs investing billions into AI saying it *can't* be a bubble because people are asking if it's a bubble.
"The fact that it's a question means we're not in a bubble... in order to get to a bubble everyone has to believe it's not a bubble."
youtu.be/Y7dwbJ0AtUA?...
Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowi...
Banning social media in such cases may only exacerbate those underlying conditions rather than fix them. There are also plenty of studies showing that many people get tremendous benefit from social media, especially among marginalized communities.
... but because of the nature of the internet, they would enable so much speech that they couldn't possibly be expected to review every bit of content for legal landmines. The goal of the law was to encourage sites to be publishers! And the method was to say "you're not liable *as* a publisher."
The whole point of 230 is to encourage sites to act as publishers for third party content, without taking on liability as publishers of all that content. If it didn't want online services to act as publishers, why would it protect them from publisher liability?!?
Section 230 not only allows (and actually encourages!) websites to be "publishers" it absolutely allows a website to say they are a publisher. That's actually the main point of Section 230 and why it was passed. Because @wyden.senate.gov@bsky.brid.gy & Chris Cox knew that internet services acted as publishers...
Indeed, if you think about it for more than half a second (again, looking at you Sen. Cruz), this is the only way the law makes sense. If being a publisher took away your Section 230 protections, what would Section 230 protect? The protections are for publishing activities!
This has been explored in a few cases, including the 9th Circuit in Barnes v. Yahoo, in which the court clearly says Yahoo receives Section 230 protections BECAUSE IT IS ACTING AS A PUBLISHER. Acting as a publisher is what the 230 protections apply to!
law.justia.com/cases/federa...
https://oyster.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:cak4klqoj3bqgk5rj6b4f5do&cid=bafkreihvvan7ihwp7xfrflh6sfkjel4lqdhexgwez7sv6zznuu647bsrwqSo, yes, there's this myth out there (again, started by Cruz, but picked up by tons of people, some who are well meaning) that 230 means you have to "chose" to be a "platform" or a "publisher." And if you're a publisher you don't get 230 protections. That's 100% wrong.
Not trying to call out Tony & Devin here, but they are (somewhat confidently) reinforcing a very common, but exactly wrong myth about Section 230 and being a "publisher." Let's use this as an opportunity to do some educating around Section 230 and the idea of being "a publisher."
https://oyster.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:cak4klqoj3bqgk5rj6b4f5do&cid=bafkreieywzxcl3bfs73ijyjexlcr2tbuumpkvgsfxa225yjlcf2rlrs46mThis is a bit confusing at first and trips up many people (including some SenatorsβI see you Ted Cruz!). But the entire point of 230 is "you can do traditional publishing activity, but without being held liable for their content, since the internet enables anyone to post anything on your site."