Let’s talk about Section 230—and how best to stop the tyranny of Big Tech

[nullius]

The following message is for people who condemn Big Tech censorship.  Negativity against Trump is off-topic.  So is rationalization of Big Tech’s actions.  There are plenty of threads where you can discuss these things.  Not here; this thread will be strictly moderated to prevent derailing.  Other local rules apply.

Although the first part of this message is addressed specifically to the American right, the remainder thereof is for anyone who recognizes the grave threat by Big Tech to freedom of speech, to privacy, and also to any genuine innovation that doesn’t suit their their intrinsically corrupt business model of surveillance capitalism and mass thought-control.

This is the abbreviated version.  I don’t have time to write the mini-book I wanted to produce on this subject; and I need to catch up on other threads.


Weakening Section 230 would be a grievous error.  Its protection is most needed by small sites who can’t afford hotshot legal teams—by the upstart startups that we need to compete with Big Tech.

I predict that if well-meaning but misguided people on the American right push to weaken Section 230, the Big Tech companies will offer token resistance—and then, let it happen.  Thereafter, hate-crazed “liberals” will use vexatious litigation to harass free-speech sites, thus destroying them by economic attrition.

The ultimate result will be anticompetitive.  The entrenched incumbents can absorb the increased legal costs, as their competitors get put out of business.

Please, do not attack Section 230.  To the contrary:  If you want to tinker with it, then you should strengthen it!


Insofar as I can see, the best existing legal means of dealing with Big Tech is via antitrust law.

theymos, I know that the very mention of antitrust law will be anathema to you.  But imagine if a competing forum colluded with Cloudflare and your backend provider to remove this forum from the Internet at a critical moment—suddenly, with negligible warning, without even giving you time to seek alternate arrangements if you didn’t have them in place already.

That is exactly what Twitter, Google, Apple, and Amazon did to Parler.^*  If there was ever a case for antitrust law, this is it!

There is a Silicon Valley cartel of vertically- and horizontally-integrated companies that prevent competition via every possible anticompetitive sharp practice short of mafia hits.  They each do this—and they do this together, according to a mutual agenda.  Antitrust laws were invented for exactly this reason.

(* I presume collusion, on the face of it.  At the exact moment when Twitter’s own actions were making many of their “customers” unhappy, two app stores and an infrastructure provider suddenly shut down Twitter’s primary competitor.  It is indisputable that Google, Apple, and Amazon acted to prevent competition against Twitter.)


That said, as a philosophical matter, I don’t think that antitrust laws are the theoretically ideal way of approaching this problem.  Perhaps some new legal theories should be developed:  The Big Tech oligopolies are quasi-governmental tyrants, who have used new technology as a force multiplier exponentiator to attain a new type of power that never before existed in history.

Has any empire in all of history ever attained direct, fine-grained control over the daily communications of billions of people?  Of course not—until Big Tech arose.  And as recently seen, they can apply that power to meddle in the political process.  They who control communications can effectually control governments!  And they are unaccountable.

But the development of new theories takes time, if it happens at all.

Antitrust laws are on the books.  As a legal matter, this is a textbook application thereof.  I urge the American right to push for rigorous antitrust law enforcement—while leaving Section 230 intact, so that Big Tech’s competitors can fairly benefit from Section 230 protections just as the Big Tech companies themselves have.

[nullius]

reserved

[Gyfts]

I agree with most all of this. Section 230 should not be repealed/replaced because it'll have unintended consequences. Section 230 is needed if you want online forums/websites to have open debate without the need for extreme content moderation.

That said, as a philosophical matter, I don’t think that antitrust laws are the theoretically ideal way of approaching this problem.  Perhaps some new legal theories should be developed:  The Big Tech oligopolies are quasi-governmental tyrants, who have used new technology as a force multiplier exponentiator to attain a new type of power that never before existed in history.

Has any empire in all of history ever attained direct, fine-grained control over the daily communications of billions of people?  Of course not—until Big Tech arose.  And as recently seen, they can apply that power to meddle in the political process.  They who control communications can effectually control governments!  And they are unaccountable.

But the development of new theories takes time, if it happens at all.

Antitrust laws are on the books.  As a legal matter, this is a textbook application thereof.  I urge the American right to push for rigorous antitrust law enforcement—while leaving Section 230 intact, so that Big Tech’s competitors can fairly benefit from Section 230 protections just as the Big Tech companies themselves have.

Internet has definitely thrown a curveball to traditional legal theory. I just don't know what you do to a company like Amazon who owns AWS which hosts some of the largest companies out there. Could these large corps that use AWS go else where? Could Parlor go else where? I guess. At what point does Amazon become a monopoly? Amazon dips their toes into online media streaming, web/IT services, financial processing, shipping logistics, food/grocery, so on. Feel like they might have already crossed the line.

[ChiBitCTy]

Mr Robot ( nullius) ..do you cypherpunks see any promise with decentralized/bchain based social media ? Ex- https://www.platinumcryptoacademy.com/crypto-trading-education/top-5-blockchain-projects-improving-social-media/

Obviously this addresses ( or attempts to ) some issues brought up here..

[PrimeNumber7]

In 2020, Facebook prevented anyone from posting “praise and support” for Kyle Rittenhouse, including links to his legal defense fund. Under section 230, "internet" companies can remove content they deem "objectionable". Should section 230 protect an "internet" company that decides any post about Rittenhouse that says Rittenhouse is not a "terrorist" is "objectionable"? I don't think it should.

There is also the issue of Marsh v. Alabama (1946) in which a town in Alabama was entirely owned by a corporation, someone tried to distribute religious materials near a post office and was arrested for trespassing on "company"/"town" property. The Supreme Court found that "[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” I can see a subsequent Supreme Court case regarding major social media platforms in the future.

Major tech platforms have used 230 to ban Trump under the guise of the threat of violence from Trump's posts, while they let terrorists such as government leaders of Iran, Chinese propagandists, and Democratic leaders calling for more political violence to remain on their platforms. One way to improve 230 would be to require social media platforms to have a binding list of unacceptable types of content that must be enforced evenly. If someone such as Nancy Pelosi can call for "uprisings in the street" is allowed to remain on Twitter, so must Trump, who was making similar statements. If a social media company is not going to enforce its policies evenly in groups of users with similar visibility, it should be prohibited from enforcing its particular policy.

The new government in the US is entirely controlled by Democrats. Prominent Democrats have called for particular actions by major tech companies, to which they complied. There is an argument this makes the tech companies an arm of the government. This is similar to how many companies in China are effectively arms of the Chinese Communist Party.

[nullius]

Make the Internet Decentralized Again!


PrimeNumber7, you seem to be making two separate lines of argument together.  I agree with half of what you say—but as for the other half, I think that you misunderstand what Section 230 actually does.

Of course, I agree that it is reprehensible for Facebook to censor discussion of Rittenhouse, and for all of the Big Tech platforms to ban the President of the United States, etc.

I like your citation of Marsh v. Alabama.  Without referring to that case, I have been intending to write a P&S essay using the “company town” argument; it definitely applies, and I am curious to see the response of “ancaps” who obviously dislike antitrust law.  Is it not the apex of anarcho-capitalism for billions of people to live in a town owned by Mark Zuckerberg, where they are perpetually under his surveillance and subject to his rules—even in “their” home lives and familial communications?

If Marsh can be applied to enforce the First Amendment directly on corporations that have obtained quasi-governmental, super-governmental powers over billions of people all over the world, then that will be an important step—but in my opinion, it is not enough.

I think that the Big Tech oligopoly should be smashed—no, must be smashed to bits.  Amongst the legal tools available, a textbook application of antitrust law is the best fit.  And I am not just saying this because of current U.S. politics.  In particular, I’ve been wanting for years to see Google, Facebook, and Amazon burnt to the ground; they are destroying the world in ways that most people never even think about.  Their whole business model is based on mass-surveillance and mass-brainwashing.  Their latest actions manifest a worsening of the symptoms, but are not the disease itself.  And locked-down devices under the peremptory control of Steve Jobs or Tim Cook have always been a big problem.  (Don’t get me started about what Twitter has done to society.)

But you are wrong about Section 230:

Under section 230, "internet" companies can remove content they deem "objectionable".

That is not what Section 230 does.

Without Section 230, a site effectually has two choices:  Either don’t do any moderation at all, not even of spam—or risk being held liable as a publisher with editorial responsibility for each post by every user.  Including anonymous, untraceable parties who registered using Tor—including people who may be trying to set you up for trouble.  If you run the site, then among other things, you need to fact-check everything that every user says—just in case someone said something legally defamatory; and that is only the beginning of your liability.  —Or else, let the spammers take over and drown out all conversation.

Both choices are obviously untenable.  As Gyfts said:

Section 230 is needed if you want online forums/websites to have open debate without the need for extreme content moderation.

It is Section 230 that enables theymos to do some moderation, and yet to have this policy protecting the freedom of speech here (boldface and italics are in the original):

Legal complaints

General rule for complaints

Bitcointalk.org aims to enable as much freedom for its users as is legally possible. We will not remove content just because it annoys you. In particular, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, bitcointalk.org cannot be held responsible for defamation by users, even if notified that possible defamation exists.

If you send us legally-nonsensical demands, we may publish them to make it clear to the world that you are illegitimately and possibly-illegally attempting to stifle discussion.

Without Section 230, for example, theymos would need to delete all of the posts in the argument between OgNasty and Vod.  I mean all posts, on both sides.  Otherwise, the forum would be legally liable for the factual accuracy of all of their mutual accusations and recriminations.

And that is only the beginning of the problem:  Defamation liability is only one of the potential problems that Section 230 guards against.


Who should have Section 230 protection?  Answer:  Everyone who is allowed to be on the Internet!

From one side, consider small leftist media platforms that heavily censor their users.  Unlike liberals, I don’t live in an echo chamber.  I often look at sites that I disagree with; and I have seen, for instance, small Mastodon instances run by ultra-leftists who complain that Twitter doesn’t censor enough (!).  Their platforms are basically little “safe spaces” where users obsess over pronouns, give each other a perpetual stream of affirmations of mutual empathy, and complain endlessly about their victimization by this-ism and that-ism.  Not much else is allowed, anyway.

Much though I yearn for a totally authoritarian régime in which robots round up all of the insapient talking monkeys whom I dislike for orderly disposal, we still seem to have principles of free speech and private property.  Alas, I am not yet recognized as the Dictator of the Universe!  So, consistently with those principles, let those crazy leftists have Section 230 protection for their freely chosen dens of insanity.

Re-applying in this context what you said about Facebook:

Should section 230 protect an "internet" company that decides any post about Rittenhouse that says Rittenhouse is not a "terrorist" is "objectionable"? I don't think it should.

I don’t think it is relevant if they censor posts about Rittenhouse, or if they permaban anyone who says that there are only and exactly two biological sexes, or if they positively require their users to chant “Trump evil! Trump evil!” in unison hundreds of times per day, or whatever.  The sites that I describe exist because their pathetic, insane users want pathetic, insane policies.

Contrast the situation with Facebook, Twitter, et al., where many of the users complain about censorship.  They only stay there because, through network effects and sharp practices, the platforms have effectually locked them in; and if they try to leave, the Big Tech oligopoly acts as a unified cartel to shut down their intended destination, as with Parler!

Now, from the other direction, consider the example of what would happen if I were to set up my own site.  For the sake of argument, pretend that I am subject to American jurisdiction—and pretend that I am amenable to legal process of any kind.  ;-)

If I run a site, I will categorically ban anyone who glorifies and rationalizes the use of marijuana and LSD.  I mean that I will ban them personally, not only censor their posts.  They tend to post insane nonsense.  It is a waste of time to debate with self-made nutcases.  They behave in ways that are poisonous to communities—and also, I just don’t like them!  Indeed, more generally, “I dislike you” will be a gloriously subjective TOS reason for permabans.  Muahahaha!  My site, my rules—bye!  So-called “people” whom I ban on the basis of my personal whims are free to go post on Gab.com, which allows any legal expression except for pornography.  Of course, I support Gab’s right to exist, despite their lack of enforcement of pure Nullianism.

Leave aside for the moment the problem that I dislike so many “people”, my site may be in danger of allowing only nobody and a nonexistent cat.

Does this mean, in your opinion, that I am a “publisher” taking editorial responsibility, and I should thus be liable for the content posted by users on my site?  That would be the effect of repealing Section 230.

Mr Robot ( nullius) ..do you cypherpunks see any promise with decentralized/bchain based social media ? Ex- https://www.platinumcryptoacademy.com/crypto-trading-education/top-5-blockchain-projects-improving-social-media/

Obviously this addresses ( or attempts to ) some issues brought up here..

I appreciate the suggestion, but it is not really the topic of this thread.

The technology for people to have discussions independently of Big Tech existed before Bitcoin did.  For example, consider what would happen, if only every person just had an independent blog at an independent domain, with the comments and the interblog syndication features that made the independent “blogosphere” so big 15–20 years ago—with each and every of them enjoying Section 230 protection against legal liability for reader comments.  That is decentralized (except for the domain name system—another problem...).  If only!

Unfortunately, as things stand, that is unrealistic to expect.  At least, it will not be happening overnight.  And similarly as to your suggestion, masses of people will not all suddenly just up and move to new decentralized platforms with blockchain sprinkled on.

Of course, I encourage the development of new technologies for new platforms—for the day after tomorrow.  But what do we do right now?  —And what do we do in a situation in which Big Tech uses sharp practices to inhibit any innovation that does not suit their agenda?  What will you do if you develop a great new platform, and Google deranks you, and Google and Apple ban you from their app stores, etc.?  (I hope that no project will be foolish enough to use Amazon AWS ever again!)

Answer:  The quasi-governmental, super-governmental Big Tech oligopoly must be smashed; and antitrust law is an appropriate tool for the job.  Make the Internet Decentralized Again!

[PrimeNumber7]

But you are wrong about Section 230:

Under section 230, "internet" companies can remove content they deem "objectionable".

That is not what Section 230 does.

Without Section 230, a site effectually has two choices:  Either don’t do any moderation at all, not even of spam—or risk being held liable as a publisher with editorial responsibility for each post by every user.  Including anonymous, untraceable parties who registered using Tor—including people who may be trying to set you up for trouble.  If you run the site, then among other things, you need to fact-check everything that every user says—just in case someone said something legally defamatory; and that is only the beginning of your liability.  —Or else, let the spammers take over and drown out all conversation.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Without 230, an internet company (such as this forum) would be liable for all content as if it was the publisher, regardless of moderation policy. This will probably mean any potentially defamatory content will need to be removed, or be verified as 'true'.

This is the same standard that editorial pages use when publishing an opt-ed in their editorial section.

Without Section 230, for example, theymos would need to delete all of the posts in the argument between OgNasty and Vod.  I mean all posts, on both sides.  Otherwise, the forum would be legally liable for the factual accuracy of all of their mutual accusations and recriminations.

theymos would be liable for defamation for any false, libelous statements made by either of the parties.

Now, from the other direction, consider the example of what would happen if I were to set up my own site.  For the sake of argument, pretend that I am subject to American jurisdiction—and pretend that I am amenable to legal process of any kind.  ;-)

If I run a site, I will categorically ban anyone who glorifies and rationalizes the use of marijuana and LSD.  I mean that I will ban them personally, not only censor their posts.  They tend to post insane nonsense.  It is a waste of time to debate with self-made nutcases.  They behave in ways that are poisonous to communities—and also, I just don’t like them!  Indeed, more generally, “I dislike you” will be a gloriously subjective TOS reason for permabans.  Muahahaha!  My site, my rules—bye!  So-called “people” whom I ban on the basis of my personal whims are free to go post on Gab.com, which allows any legal expression except for pornography.  Of course, I support Gab’s right to exist, despite their lack of enforcement of pure Nullianism.

Leave aside for the moment the problem that I dislike so many “people”, my site may be in danger of allowing only nobody and a nonexistent cat.

Does this mean, in your opinion, that I am a “publisher” taking editorial responsibility, and I should thus be liable for the content posted by users on my site?  That would be the effect of repealing Section 230.

In a narrow context, yes I think you would be a 'publisher' if you were to take the stance that no one can '[glorify] and [rationalize] the use of marijuana and LSD'. I don't think you would be a publisher of all content, only content that specifically defames someone resulting from this policy.

A better example might be this:
Say, for example, you ban content saying that PN7 did not steal a loaf of bread from the market on Monday, February 1, and allow content that says PN7 did steal a loaf of bread from the market on Monday, February 1. If someone makes a post saying that PN7 stole a loaf of bread on Monday, February 1, this should be treated as if you are the publisher. This is because you are telling your userbase this is the only position they can take, and you are preventing the accused from defending themselves personally or via proxies.

[theymos]

Without Section 230, for example, theymos would need to delete all of the posts in the argument between OgNasty and Vod.  I mean all posts, on both sides.  Otherwise, the forum would be legally liable for the factual accuracy of all of their mutual accusations and recriminations.

theymos would be liable for defamation for any false, libelous statements made by either of the parties.

Neither of you are quite right. The forum would not become the publisher of each user's content even if section 230 disappeared. It would not be the same as bitcointalk.org being a newspaper with each poster as a journalist. Rather, it creates the opportunity for tort and criminal cases in the vein of: "bitcointalk.org should have done more to prevent xyz, and is therefore to some extent liable." It's similar to how people are often sued for things that happen on their property, even if they weren't the direct cause of it. If someone trips over a stair on your property, they can sue you for damages. Companies have been sued after people were murdered on their property, even if the companies and their employees had nothing to do with it. There have been criminal cases against property owners over drug deals conducted by third-parties on their property. Etc. None of these cases are certain to succeed against the property owner, but legal cases like these are common and incredibly expensive to defend against. Section 230 allows for any case like this against Internet service providers to be immediately dismissed instead of proceeding to a full court case in which the parties would spend millions of dollars and years of time arguing about the precise extent to which the service provider is actually at fault for the actions of third-parties. (The extent of moderation would impact these arguments about how much liability the provider has in each individual case, but zero moderation wouldn't guarantee zero liability, and extensive moderation wouldn't guarantee publisher-level liability.)

I can tell you what bitcointalk.org would do if section 230 were completely removed overnight: The Marketplace sections would be closed; signatures would be removed; altcoin/token promotion of any kind would probably be banned; and a lot of rules would need to be added. It's not that the forum would clearly be liable for eg. marketplace scammers or libel by forum members -- anyone bringing a case to that effect would have a good chance of losing --, but all of this stuff would create such a huge attack surface for lawsuits that the legal defense costs would end up amounting to tens of millions of dollars, and potentially much more if the forum were to actually lose even one of the hundreds of lawsuits which would be incoming. The scope of the forum would have to be reduced to something that could actually be reasonably defended, rather than the current near-universal scope.

If you don't like "big tech censorship", removing section 230 will force them to censor more to limit their liability, and it will give them a huge competitive advantage over smaller players because they'll have the resources to get as close to the line as possible. Facebook has the cash to endure thousands of incoming lawsuits and win 99.9% of them; your-niche-forum.org does not have these resources. Removing section 230 would move the Internet in the direction of TV as it existed decades ago, where there were only 3 channels and the content on these channels was highly regulated by the government. (Many establishment politicians would be quite pleased with this outcome, and may be intentionally aiming for this.)

If you think that big tech companies should be doing more to protect the public, and you want the government to get involved, you have to consider what happens when the government is controlled by people you don't like. Remember when the Trump administration subpoenaed Dreamhost to get a list of everyone who visited some anti-Trump website? Remember "free speech zones" under Bush? The government could in theory always do everything exactly as you want from now until the end of time, and this is how most people tend to think about the government, but in practice there are always hundreds of things that the government is doing right now that you disagree with, and there will almost certainly be periods in the future where it'll be even much, much worse from your perspective.

The only good solution is to refuse to use sites that have policies you don't like, and use/create alternatives. Keep the government out of it. For example, Parler is one alternative to Twitter, and they're using one alternative to AWS. Decentralized alternatives would be even better. If more people use these alternatives, then the alternatives will get more resources and grow, as long as this growth isn't prevented through eg. regulation. Bitcoin can help with this, in fact, since a lot of stuff throughout the economy is prevented through barriers within the fiat financial system, which is an oligopoly thanks to the same sort of regulatory capture I worry about with Internet regulations. (Eg. Pornhub, marijuana companies, etc. can't use the fiat financial system. I won't be at all surprised if the same happens with Parler and their service providers eventually.)

[malevolent]

I can tell you what bitcointalk.org would do if section 230 were completely removed overnight: The Marketplace sections would be closed; signatures would be removed; altcoin/token promotion of any kind would probably be banned; and a lot of rules would need to be added. It's not that the forum would clearly be liable for eg. marketplace scammers or libel by forum members -- anyone bringing a case to that effect would have a good chance of losing --, but all of this stuff would create such a huge attack surface for lawsuits that the legal defense costs would end up amounting to tens of millions of dollars, and potentially much more if the forum were to actually lose even one of the hundreds of lawsuits which would be incoming. The scope of the forum would have to be reduced to something that could actually be reasonably defended, rather than the current near-universal scope.

What do you think are the odds that Section 230 is repealed or changed to such an extent that bitcointalk would need to undergo any changes in terms of allowable content?

[squatz1]

I can tell you what bitcointalk.org would do if section 230 were completely removed overnight: The Marketplace sections would be closed; signatures would be removed; altcoin/token promotion of any kind would probably be banned; and a lot of rules would need to be added. It's not that the forum would clearly be liable for eg. marketplace scammers or libel by forum members -- anyone bringing a case to that effect would have a good chance of losing --, but all of this stuff would create such a huge attack surface for lawsuits that the legal defense costs would end up amounting to tens of millions of dollars, and potentially much more if the forum were to actually lose even one of the hundreds of lawsuits which would be incoming. The scope of the forum would have to be reduced to something that could actually be reasonably defended, rather than the current near-universal scope.

What do you think are the odds that Section 230 is repealed or changed to such an extent that bitcointalk would need to undergo any changes in terms of allowable content?

Given the fact that Congress overrode Trumps veto of the Defense bill because of the section 230 threat I’d say that the likelihood of this actually getting through Congress is slim to none.

There’s totally a chance of some regulatory oversight into big tech, maybe in the realm of privacy, data collection, or something along those lines.

But I’d assume that big tech has enough lobbying power to stop a section 230 repeal, even if there’s enough information on the Conservative led Trump side to convince some people that it’s a good idea.

[theymos]

What do you think are the odds that Section 230 is repealed or changed to such an extent that bitcointalk would need to undergo any changes in terms of allowable content?

I think that legal changes in this area which would impact forum operations are pretty likely over the next 10 years, but how big of a problem these changes will be I'm not sure, and it'll probably happen as a very gradual process, not a sudden disaster.

A complete repeal isn't too likely anytime soon, though it's not impossible. I think that if you polled Congress right now, 70% would probably support repeal, but there are effective lobbying efforts to prevent this from actually happening. Most Republican lawmakers shouldn't want to repeal it, so lobbyists just have to make them realize this. Most Democrat lawmakers probably wouldn't mind repealing it, but Big Tech is largely located in deep blue states, and their lobbyists carry a lot of weight with Democrats. I could see a complete repeal happening if anger over Big Tech boils over, both sides blame section 230 rather than other more sane targets (such as antitrust, as nullius mentions), and Big Tech decides that they'll be better off lobbying for repeal than against it. A complete repeal would create huge costs and changes for Big Tech, which is why they lobby against it currently, but a repeal would give them an absolutely massive competitive advantage going forward; Facebook and Google would be becoming the Visa and Mastercard of social networks. It'd be similar to how Amazon eventually lobbied for the ability of states to charge sales tax on online sales: Amazon is among the best-positioned to navigate the thousands of sales tax jurisdictions in the US, use its size to overcome the added pricing pressures of tax on top of delivery fees, and be used as a platform for merchants who can't themselves deal with these things effectively.

Both sides have ideas for hundred-page-laws they'd like to pass in this area, but this isn't likely unless the filibuster is removed or one party gets a supermajority in the future, since everyone wants the tech companies to deplatform more people who they don't like and to stop deplatforming people who they do like, but everyone likes/dislikes totally different groups of people. Chipping away at the edges (like FOSTA-SESTA) is quite likely, and eventually this could accumulate into effectively repealing section 230 "by a thousand cuts".

[PrimeNumber7]

I can tell you what bitcointalk.org would do if section 230 were completely removed overnight:

I have my doubts that section 230 will be completely removed (although if it were to be entirely removed, it would be something similar to 'overnight'). Far more likely is it will be tweaked in some way.

The Marketplace sections would be closed; signatures would be removed; altcoin/token promotion of any kind would probably be banned;

The Marketplace sections are already declining in popularity. I think section 230 being removed would make the Marketplace sections (all of what you list is part of a "marketplace") something similar to classified ads. This would probably make you subject to various regulations.

If you don't like "big tech censorship", removing section 230 will force them to censor more to limit their liability,

I think most people's concerns around 'big tech censorship' is not necessarily the censorship itself, but rather that the censorship is one-sided. I believe many people do not like that only particular viewpoints and world views are accepted by 'big tech'.

If you think that big tech companies should be doing more to protect the public, and you want the government to get involved,

Right now, 'big tech' are arguably qazi-government entities. Some might argue this is worse than being controlled by government, run by people you disagree with as 'big tech' is largely unaccountable and cannot be 'voted out' as the government can.

Currently, section 230 means there is virtually zero regulation for internet platforms. I believe the best solution would be a very modest amount of regulations.

The only good solution is to refuse to use sites that have policies you don't like, and use/create alternatives. Keep the government out of it. For example, Parler is one alternative to Twitter, and they're using one alternative to AWS. Decentralized alternatives would be even better. If more people use these alternatives, then the alternatives will get more resources and grow, as long as this growth isn't prevented through eg. regulation. Bitcoin can help with this, in fact, since a lot of stuff throughout the economy is prevented through barriers within the fiat financial system, which is an oligopoly thanks to the same sort of regulatory capture I worry about with Internet regulations. (Eg. Pornhub, marijuana companies, etc. can't use the fiat financial system. I won't be at all surprised if the same happens with Parler and their service providers eventually.)

I don't believe that Parlor is actually using any cloud service; their website is up, but it is a static page with updates from its founder/CEO.

PornHub was actually cutoff from the financial system, and had to make changes to their policies in order to process (presumably advertiser) payments via the financial system again. Parlor was cutoff from processing payments shortly prior to AWS cutting them off.

The problem with decentralized alternatives is they are less efficient and are difficult to scale. A bitcoin transaction for example needs to be stored in thousands of places, while a bank transfer only needs to be stored in a handful of places (this is one example as to why LN and other 2nd layer features are so important). Bitcoin does have many advantages over the traditional financial system, but efficiencies is not one of them.

Napster for example was nowhere near as efficient as iTunes was at the time, and I don't see bucket storage ever being less efficient as a decentralized alternative (I have transferred 500 GB compromised of ~50 MB objects across cloud platforms in about 30 seconds).

edit to add:

What do you think are the odds that Section 230 is repealed or changed to such an extent that bitcointalk would need to undergo any changes in terms of allowable content?

This is a pretty broad question, but I think the chances are pretty good. The early Trump administration removed section 230 exemptions for sex work (which probably had some negative unintended consequences) content. We don't see much of that on the forum, but it actually might be a good idea to prohibit escort services advertising. I can see other categories of content having their exemption removed and that may or may not include content that frequently appears on the forum, but even if it doesn't, it would probably be a good idea to prohibit such content.

The GameStop saga may lead to curbs of section 230 in regards to some securities laws, and if this happens, the altcoin and Securities subs would probably need to be locked/closed, and additional restrictions on content added. IMO this is the most likely way that changes to 230 would impact the forum in a major way in the short term.