3 ms·

> "Because of the immunity it grants to publishers who act as intermediaries for this flow of information and commentary, “Section 230 is the backbone of the In

by SeanDav 10y ago

> "Because of the immunity it grants to publishers who act as intermediaries for this flow of information and commentary, “Section 230 is the backbone of the Internet,” says Thomas Burke" If Yelp was a pure intermediary, perhaps they would have a case, but they are not and neither are any of the other companies mentioned. All these companies decide what they want to keep on their sites and what they want to remove. All of them can and do delete information and block accounts of people that break their rules. They should not be able to hide behind Section 230 by keeping information on their site that they know to be libellous or illegal and they should be prosecuted for doing so.

zaroth 10y ago
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pure intermediary". Section 230 does not say that you have to publish all user-generated content indiscriminately in order for its safe-harbor to apply. IANAL, but that's not how I understand that Section 230 works. If it did work that way, I think the law would be horribly broken. No site hosting UGC can be completely un-moderated, and therefore by your reasoning, no site with UGC content could benefit from Section 230. Luckily, sites can exercise some measure of editorial control of their UGC while at the same time still benefiting from Section 230 protections. As the OP states, the law is often regarded as the legal backbone of the internet, and its protections for publishers should not be easily dismissed. What Yelp is demanding here is to be a named defendant if they are to be bound by the court decision, which is already the standard for newspapers. I think it's fair to expect to have a seat at the table if the courts are going to be ordering you to modify your site. Particularly because in this case there appear to be questions-of-fact regarding which reviews were even written by the defendant.

by SeanDav 10y ago

zaroth 10y ago

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pure intermediary". Section 230 does not say that you have to publish all user-generated content indiscriminately in order for its safe-harbor to apply. IANAL, but that's not how I understand that Section 230 works. If it did work that way, I think the law would be horribly broken. No site hosting UGC can be completely un-moderated, and therefore by your reasoning, no site with UGC content could benefit from Section 230. Luckily, sites can exercise some measure of editorial control of their UGC while at the same time still benefiting from Section 230 protections. As the OP states, the law is often regarded as the legal backbone of the internet, and its protections for publishers should not be easily dismissed. What Yelp is demanding here is to be a named defendant if they are to be bound by the court decision, which is already the standard for newspapers. I think it's fair to expect to have a seat at the table if the courts are going to be ordering you to modify your site. Particularly because in this case there appear to be questions-of-fact regarding which reviews were even written by the defendant.