3 ms·

>In order to get these protections, they have to behave a certain way. I'm not sure about this, but it's an argument I've heard. This is commonly repeated but

>In order to get these protections, they have to behave a certain way. I'm not sure about this, but it's an argument I've heard. This is commonly repeated but not true. In fact, the opposite is true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Scroll down to section C. 1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. 2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 2.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 2.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 (1).[1]

linuxftw 7y ago
I don't see how 2.a would stand in a courtroom. What is 'good faith' and 'otherwise objectionable' in this context? Is removing all content from a religious group afforded in this definition, as long as the provider considers it objectionable? 'whether or not such material is constitutionally protected' has almost no meaning because almost all speech is protected. Another interesting point is, while it's allowable by the law to restrict content you deem objectionable, is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Is it acceptable to remove religious content with no explanation as to why? Is it acceptable to ban or demonetize a religious group without explanation?
- root_axis 7y ago
  I don't think it makes sense for us to debate "what would stand in a courtroom" since this has been the law of the land for more than two decades and has been able to "stand" just fine so far. We could debate whether or not the law should be repealed or amended, but the consequences of the law as is are pretty clear: online platforms are not responsible for content posted by a 3rd party and are free to curate content on their platform at their own discretion. > is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Legally it is allowable since the law makes no distinction between "promotion" and "curation".

linuxftw 7y ago

I don't see how 2.a would stand in a courtroom. What is 'good faith' and 'otherwise objectionable' in this context? Is removing all content from a religious group afforded in this definition, as long as the provider considers it objectionable? 'whether or not such material is constitutionally protected' has almost no meaning because almost all speech is protected. Another interesting point is, while it's allowable by the law to restrict content you deem objectionable, is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Is it acceptable to remove religious content with no explanation as to why? Is it acceptable to ban or demonetize a religious group without explanation?

root_axis 7y ago
I don't think it makes sense for us to debate "what would stand in a courtroom" since this has been the law of the land for more than two decades and has been able to "stand" just fine so far. We could debate whether or not the law should be repealed or amended, but the consequences of the law as is are pretty clear: online platforms are not responsible for content posted by a 3rd party and are free to curate content on their platform at their own discretion. > is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Legally it is allowable since the law makes no distinction between "promotion" and "curation".