4 ms·

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 g

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 We could debate whether or not the law should be repealed or amended, but the consequences of the law as is are pretty clear: online platforms are not responsible for content posted by a 3rd party and are free to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".