4 ms·
Why does it need them in the US ? - From what I understand section 230 protects a company from lawsuits related to content posted by their users, signal is not
by seemslegit 7y ago
Why does it need them in the US ? - From what I understand section 230 protects a company from lawsuits related to content posted by their users, signal is not a content platform as it does person-to-person communication
- Klonoar 7y agoSignal also doesn't retain the content, I believe, which... well, if it's more or less auto-killed, there's no argument, no? Note that I don't support doing away with Section 230, but I find this train of thought interesting.
- vharuck 7y agoSection 230 isn't only for services that handle public posts. It covers any "interactive computer service" [0], which includes internet forums, internet messaging applications, ISPs, and even public libraries with public computers. Check out the cases in which judges cited section 230 [1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- seemslegit 7y agoThanks, the most relevant case for signal appears to be Delfino v. Agilent Technologies where imunity was upheld for an employer whose email system was used by an employee to send a threatening message. It seems strange for something like this to hinge on section 230 though, were emails providers liable for such things before it was passed ? What about cellular carriers for SMS content ?