I kind of like the idea of replacing YouTube/TikTok with self-hosting though. It would be a very different Internet if people took responsibility for their own content.

▲

Habgdnv 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Just my personal thoughts:

Section 230 is the reason for the current situation. It allows youtube to host many videos and the internet became centralized. Then they decide that they will censor someone or some topic they don't like.

If tomorrow they remove section 230, and youtube cease to exist as is right now and everyone starts to self-host it will become quite impossible to deplatform anyone.

▲

MrDrMcCoy 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Without Section 230, self-hosters have to choose between screaming into the void or playing Russian roulette. You'd either have just your own content that you'd have to self police, or have a comment section where anybody could post something "objectional" that you would be responsible for. Online conversations would effectively be over, right down to email providers once a chain letter gets going that says something the authorities don't like. Section 230 might enable some bad things, but then again, so does free speech. The cost is worth it.

▲

wmf 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, social media would also have to decentralize.

	▲	MrDrMcCoy 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My point is that it couldn't. Comments, regardless of where hosted, would be radioactive without S230. At best, we could vote on links, but there could effectively be no conversation because hosting it would be too risky.