3 ms·
> Safe harbor effectively gives them immunity to prosecution for profiting on the malicious content they host I do not think this is true at all. See, for exam
by eli 9y ago
> Safe harbor effectively gives them immunity to prosecution for profiting on the malicious content they host
I do not think this is true at all. See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/24/google-settles-us-drug-advertising-case https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/24/google-se...
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoIt depends a bit on the jurisdiction and type of case. For instance, SESTA modifies Section 230 of the CDA, which chiefly grants companies like Google immunity from civil and criminal cases stemming from state and local law. Federal criminal law is explicitly excluded, so the DOJ, for example, could still go after them[1]. Intellectual property is also excluded from Section 230, but, that is covered elsewhere: The DMCA grants them significant immunity in copyright infringement cases. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...