3 ms·
That’s impossible. Congress exempted the entire internet from court on something like this. Look at the communications decency act.
by xphilter 6y ago
That’s impossible. Congress exempted the entire internet from court on something like this. Look at the communications decency act.
- lgleason 6y agoonly if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.
- mmebane 6y agoThis podcast goes into a lot of detail on what the CDA says: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/deplatformed-social-media-censorship-and-the-first-amendment/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/de...
- tzs 6y agoThat's a common myth, and is completely wrong. In fact, it is almost 180 degrees wrong. Before section 230, there had been a couple of court cases. One held that a particular provider was not liable for anything posted on it, because it did not do any filtering or blocking at all. Another held that a different provider was liable for what users posted, because it did do some filtering and blocking. Congress felt these outcomes were wrong, and section 230 was specifically meant to make providers not liable for user provided content, regardless of whether or not they did any filtering or blocking.
- SkyBelow 6y agoAnd yet sites that aggregate illegal content are taken down by the government all the time, despite hosting none of it themselves. If you filter the wrong way, the government will hold you liable.
- jimmySixDOF 6y agoThe Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet: "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." -Section 230 [1] https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414 https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Interne...