3 ms·
> Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. I don't believe that is true. There is no
by rhcom2 7y ago
> Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post.
I don't believe that is true. There is nothing in the law that says the platforms can't select or edit what their users post.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
- jaywalk 7y agoI don' believe your interpretation is correct. I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally. But they're not. Even if the content was originally provided by someone else, the platform is making the decision to promote some content and demote other content. In other words, they are making active decisions about what content they'd like to have appear on their supposedly neutral platform.
- kelnos 7y ago> I believe the law assumes... That's not how law works. The law, as written, does not require -- or even say anything about -- treating all content equally. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was written specifically to find a middle ground between "common carrier" and "publisher". It's actually very simple and very readable for a layperson[0]: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. That's it; that's the full text. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- jaywalk 7y agoLaws are written by people, and people make assumptions. When I say "the law assumes" I obviously meant "the people who wrote the law assumed." People expose unintended loopholes in laws all the time, because the people who wrote the laws assumed certain things that ended up not being correct.
- kelnos 7y agoI don't agree that the people who wrote the law assumed that at all. The actual text of the law gives no indication of that. But regardless, neither you nor I have any idea what was in the heads of lawmakers at the time, so any such speculation is useless. All we have is the text.
- rhcom2 7y ago> I believe the law assumes that platforms are treating all content equally. Can you cite anything about the law that supports this?