>> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources
Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't.
>> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet
Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. You didn't get cut off if your politics didn't match the phone company's. And if you act as a platform like that on the internet, you could allow the posting of content you haven't checked yet.
Platform or publisher, pick one.
>> The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of running a community online
Not true, there are print communities that publish users' content - people take that risk.
>> "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon
Dictionary definitions of publish: "to make generally known", "to disseminate to the public". No, "publish" is not a distortion, it's a dictionary definition, you just don't like the consequences of that definition.
>> "Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content"
Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print. False claim.
>> A functional Internet
An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.
No. Just no.
Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't.
>> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet
Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. You didn't get cut off if your politics didn't match the phone company's. And if you act as a platform like that on the internet, you could allow the posting of content you haven't checked yet.
Platform or publisher, pick one.
>> The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of running a community online
Not true, there are print communities that publish users' content - people take that risk.
>> "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon
Dictionary definitions of publish: "to make generally known", "to disseminate to the public". No, "publish" is not a distortion, it's a dictionary definition, you just don't like the consequences of that definition.
>> "Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content"
Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print. False claim.
>> A functional Internet
An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.
No. Just no.