230 has nothing to do with the news media. They are already protected under the first amendment. Media can have whatever viewpoint and publish whatever garbage they want and, so long as it isn't libel or slander, they are entirely within their rights to do so. Those laws could stand to be strengthened, but it's really something that needs to be worked out in the marketplace.
230 is specific to the internet. It protects websites from liabilities associated with their users' speech, which serves an important purpose but it's being abused by big tech. The issue is that they claim to be platforms when it suits their purposes (for liability protection) and publishers when it suits their purposes in others (censoring). It's 25 year old law that predates social networking and just needs to be updated, really.
But, no, fake news doesn't go away with 230 should it be repealed.
230 has nothing to do with the news media. They are already protected under the first amendment. Media can have whatever viewpoint and publish whatever garbage they want and, so long as it isn't libel or slander, they are entirely within their rights to do so. Those laws could stand to be strengthened, but it's really something that needs to be worked out in the marketplace.
230 is specific to the internet. It protects websites from liabilities associated with their users' speech, which serves an important purpose but it's being abused by big tech. The issue is that they claim to be platforms when it suits their purposes (for liability protection) and publishers when it suits their purposes in others (censoring). It's 25 year old law that predates social networking and just needs to be updated, really.
But, no, fake news doesn't go away with 230 should it be repealed.