3 ms·
Nobody here fucking gets it. If Twitter moderates any legal content, they are no longer protected under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as a communications
by forgotmyaccount 18y ago
Nobody here fucking gets it.
If Twitter moderates any legal content, they are no longer protected under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as a communications service provider and are instead a publisher, which makes them directly liable for any user's libelous statements even if they didn't know about them.
- epi0Bauqu 18y agoI assume you are referring to Section 230 of the CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio... To qualify Twitter just needs to be a "passive conduit" of the information. I believe the case law has defined this (in Twitter's context) to roughly mean as long as they do not actively monitor and screen content, then they are a passive conduit. That is, I do not believe an irate customer pointing out harassment, and then Twitter shutting the perpetrator off in response to that harassmanet, would undermine their CDA exemption in any way. I haven't looked at this in a few years, so if there is more recent case law, please enlighten me.
- raganwald 18y agoSo how does Flickr get away with moderating content and banning users? How does Hacker News get away with moderating conetnt and banning users? How does Reddit get away with moderating content reported as spam? How do any of these sites get away with banning porn or spam?
- mattmaroon 18y agoYeah, I feel like he must be misunderstanding a law there. Otherwise the economic viability of much of the web goes out the window.