4 ms·
On the face of it this isn't a section 230 issue because nobody published anything illegal (CDA doesn't apply to private chats). But actually it is -- I suspect
by awinter-py 7y ago
On the face of it this isn't a section 230 issue because nobody published anything illegal (CDA doesn't apply to private chats). But actually it is -- I suspect there's a COPPA violation in here. The platform could be a defendant in these actions if not for the exemption.
SESTA doesn't help here because of 'knowingly'.
I buy the argument that 'without section 230, ISPs wouldn't exist.' I hate my ISPs specifically but in general I think internet access is a social good.
But I don't feel the same way about instagram, or even the AOLs and compuserves that existed when this law passed. Rewrite this so that it protects ISPs but not social platforms. 'Without this exemption, FB has to charge its users so they can afford moderation' is a fine compromise for me.
- chmod775 7y ago> But I don't feel the same way about instagram, or even the AOLs and compuserves that existed when this law passed. Rewrite this so that it protects ISPs but not social platforms. 'Without this exemption, FB has to charge its users so they can afford moderation' is a fine compromise for me. You want some faceless moderator at Facebook/Google to read all your private messages and look at all your stuff? I don't think you've thought this through.
- awinter-py 7y agoThis isn't about DMs. CDA / 230 doesn't apply to DMs. It's about the hypothetically COPPA-violating public account created by an under-13 minor. The original photo in the sting wasn't a DM, I assume it was posted publicly. It's about liability for public posts.