> Perhaps Section 230 shouldn’t extend to sites with anonymity. If somebody is harmed then somebody should be liable.
The creator is liable even if they are anonymous.
There is a difference between someone being liable and it being easy to identify who they are. (And, even if the site owner isn’t liable, a John Doe suit against the anonymous user can be a framework within which to subpoena the site owner for records which help to identify the liable user.)
I don't like that. If the user cannot be held liable for whatever reason it needs to fall on the site. I don't like that people can be harmed without recourse. There is little incentive for the site to run communities that aren't toxic.
There's little incentive for good moderation, and there's little cost for any moderation, which makes sites business models work.
I agree with you that it has gaps and ugly side effects, but it also has the effect that a lot of things are working because you're not by default responsible for them because they've been commented on your server.
The creator is liable even if they are anonymous.
There is a difference between someone being liable and it being easy to identify who they are. (And, even if the site owner isn’t liable, a John Doe suit against the anonymous user can be a framework within which to subpoena the site owner for records which help to identify the liable user.)