6 ms·
The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (al
by javagram 7y ago
The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability.
The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.
- skrowl 7y agoI hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it
- pwinnski 7y agoIt is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing. What one wants and what is are not always the same.
- javagram 7y agoMy statement was not about what I think should be the case, but about what is currently the state of the law in the USA. Regarding what views I may have that are “extreme”, I’m well aware of the growing threat poised by this to myself...
- radiator 7y ago... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.
- javagram 7y agoDid you ever use AOL? It was similar to a website today. There was a search feature, you could view content on it, and so on. They exercised editorial judgment and removed content. Nevertheless, they were found immune from liability for a piece of third party content on their service that they did not remove. Just follow the link and look up the various legal cases if you want to know more.
- Qwertystop 7y agoThey censored some things and not others, and were not held liable for those things which they did not censor.