3 ms·

If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us?

by sbov 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us? Well, it's online, user-submitted content, so CDA 230 would seem to apply, whose whole point is to allow editorial control without liability.
- twtw 8y ago
  As I understand it, that is not the "whole point" of cda 230. CDA 230 gives providers immunity from being treated as publisher when they host user submitted content, and as such doesn't apply when the provider embraces the role of publisher by editorializing content. Perhaps I misunderstand cda 230.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I think you do misunderstand, though in a way which is common when people forget (or never knew) the context in which it was adopted. Prior to CDA 230 (and still, in other media not subject to the CDA 230 safe harbor) exercising editorial control was what differentiates between a distributor who has notice-based liability for various unlawful content (meaning, roughly, they are responsible if they know about it and do nothing), and a publisher who has strict liability (and is therefore liable even if they don't know about it.) In the debate leading to the adoption of CDA 230 the fact that this situation discouraged hosts from making best-effort attempts to eliminate unwelcome, including unlawful, content for fear of triggering strict liability was raised, and the desire to enable this kind of best-effort elimination of “objectionable and inappropriate” content is an explicitly-stated policy goal in Section 230(b). Th actual safe harbor provision, Sec 230(c) is titled Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. The idea that it isn't to enable to the host to affirmatively take action to prevent relaying content that might be offensive is...not well supported.
matt4077 8y ago
Because that's a cliche that, despite its tiresome repetition here and in other tech forum, hasn't been true for 22 years, and only ever was the law of the land for a bit more than a year (1995, until the passage of the Communcations Decency Act in 1996) Specifically, US Code § 230(c)(2) ("Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material") provides: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)

If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us?

by sbov 8y ago

If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If they exercise editorial control, why aren't they legally liable for the content they serve us? Well, it's online, user-submitted content, so CDA 230 would seem to apply, whose whole point is to allow editorial control without liability.

twtw 8y ago
As I understand it, that is not the "whole point" of cda 230. CDA 230 gives providers immunity from being treated as publisher when they host user submitted content, and as such doesn't apply when the provider embraces the role of publisher by editorializing content. Perhaps I misunderstand cda 230.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  I think you do misunderstand, though in a way which is common when people forget (or never knew) the context in which it was adopted. Prior to CDA 230 (and still, in other media not subject to the CDA 230 safe harbor) exercising editorial control was what differentiates between a distributor who has notice-based liability for various unlawful content (meaning, roughly, they are responsible if they know about it and do nothing), and a publisher who has strict liability (and is therefore liable even if they don't know about it.) In the debate leading to the adoption of CDA 230 the fact that this situation discouraged hosts from making best-effort attempts to eliminate unwelcome, including unlawful, content for fear of triggering strict liability was raised, and the desire to enable this kind of best-effort elimination of “objectionable and inappropriate” content is an explicitly-stated policy goal in Section 230(b). Th actual safe harbor provision, Sec 230(c) is titled Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. The idea that it isn't to enable to the host to affirmatively take action to prevent relaying content that might be offensive is...not well supported.

matt4077 8y ago

Because that's a cliche that, despite its tiresome repetition here and in other tech forum, hasn't been true for 22 years, and only ever was the law of the land for a bit more than a year (1995, until the passage of the Communcations Decency Act in 1996) Specifically, US Code § 230(c)(2) ("Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material") provides: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)