3 ms·
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 edito
by 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 agoThe 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".