Porn sites that host such content do not deliberately choose to host it, they are forced to host it by criminal users, because the website allows user uploads without content scanning, which allows users to upload anything and have it only get moderated after it is already live.
The existence of companies that fail to do an excellent job of preventing the upload of child pornography and rape is a trade off.
In exchange for giving section 230 to everybody, including porn hosts that fail to perfectly vet their content, the existence of youtube, hacker news and [insert your favourite social media] is enabled. Having the wrong things only get moderated after they are put on the internet, instead of before, is the price we pay to allow good things to get put on the internet.
After all, you certainly wouldn't like to be in a situation where you reply to me and have to wait three hours for a janitor to check that your reply is acceptable before your reply could go live, would you?
The current system avoids that hypothetical negative.
The existence of companies that fail to do an excellent job of preventing the upload of child pornography and rape is a trade off.
In exchange for giving section 230 to everybody, including porn hosts that fail to perfectly vet their content, the existence of youtube, hacker news and [insert your favourite social media] is enabled. Having the wrong things only get moderated after they are put on the internet, instead of before, is the price we pay to allow good things to get put on the internet.
After all, you certainly wouldn't like to be in a situation where you reply to me and have to wait three hours for a janitor to check that your reply is acceptable before your reply could go live, would you?
The current system avoids that hypothetical negative.