3 ms·
OK you can replace "platform" with "protected by CDA 230 ", the argument still stands as is. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda23
by buboard 7y ago
OK you can replace "platform" with "protected by CDA 230 ", the argument still stands as is.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
- iron0013 7y agoI'm not sure what you think you're proving with that link. CDA 230 does something very close to the opposite of what you seem to think that it does. It protects the providers of interactive computer services from liability, but it does not restrict their control over whether to provide those services or not, which would of course obviously be a violation of those interactive computer services' first amendment rights. CDA 230 protects, it does not restrict. The text of the code is really quite straightforward and easy to interpret if you do it in good faith, putting your ideology aside.
- buboard 7y ago> it does not restrict their control this whole thread is about the hypothetical situation in which the two are linked by new laws
- iron0013 7y agoA hypothetical situation which could never arise, because the first amendment protects everyone, including both the users AND the operators of interactive computer services (such as HN, Reddit, Facebook, Google search, etc).