3 ms·

> why should there be a binary choice between those two options? Because the distinction is binary. You either censor what information people consume beyond wh

> why should there be a binary choice between those two options? Because the distinction is binary. You either censor what information people consume beyond what the law requires you to or you don't. publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two.

akersten 7y ago
Citation badly needed. Please indicate the law that says "as soon as you moderate, you become responsible for all the other content on your platform." Because I don't think there is one. And I think that's an extremely strained interpretation of Section 230.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  The argument is not legal, but semantic. Unless the post you are replying to is edited, you are asking for citation for a quote that was not made by the person you are replying to.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Their post specifically stated a legal argument: >> publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two So I'm curious about the law that provides that. My quotation marks are to summarize the position being made - I use >> for direct quotes.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      Your summary seems rather inaccurate. The person you are responding to is merely pointing out that there is a binary distinction between those that exert editorial control over their content and those that don't and that "publisher" and "common carrier" are the legal terms that cover those two binary categories (which may not be strictly accurate.) There is nothing about responsibility, so you are putting words in their mouth.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        The legal protections for "common carriers" were established via Case Law in Smith v. California and extended to online platforms in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. this was then limited to not cover online "publishers" who exert editorial control in Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Section 230 was intended to limit this last Case Law decision and extend the protections given to online "common carriers" to online "publishers".
- schoen 7y ago
  In fact, §230 was meant to reverse prior legal decisions that pointed in this direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

akersten 7y ago

Citation badly needed. Please indicate the law that says "as soon as you moderate, you become responsible for all the other content on your platform." Because I don't think there is one. And I think that's an extremely strained interpretation of Section 230.

shkkmo 7y ago
The argument is not legal, but semantic. Unless the post you are replying to is edited, you are asking for citation for a quote that was not made by the person you are replying to.
- akersten 7y ago
  Their post specifically stated a legal argument: >> publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two So I'm curious about the law that provides that. My quotation marks are to summarize the position being made - I use >> for direct quotes.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Your summary seems rather inaccurate. The person you are responding to is merely pointing out that there is a binary distinction between those that exert editorial control over their content and those that don't and that "publisher" and "common carrier" are the legal terms that cover those two binary categories (which may not be strictly accurate.) There is nothing about responsibility, so you are putting words in their mouth.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      The legal protections for "common carriers" were established via Case Law in Smith v. California and extended to online platforms in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. this was then limited to not cover online "publishers" who exert editorial control in Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Section 230 was intended to limit this last Case Law decision and extend the protections given to online "common carriers" to online "publishers".
schoen 7y ago
In fact, §230 was meant to reverse prior legal decisions that pointed in this direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...