3 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati.
by belorn 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
To sum up: If the platform becomes the "information content provider", defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information", then they loose the protection. The statute also excepts federal criminal liability and intellectual property claims.
Creation or development of information can exclusively be moderation, as has been shown in copyright cases. Cutting (deciding what to show and what not to show), re-arrange or changing the context can create new original work, which would make the creator an information content provider for that. At the same time, doing either of those does not automatically cause the moderator to become a creator of original work.
As lawyers like to say, it all depends on the details of the specific case. To take a extreme example outside of this twitter discussion, taking an video interview and cutting it to create a new narrative would make the editor responsible for that whole new version.
- joshuamorton 6y ago> can exclusively be moderation But not for the purposes of section 230. And there's significant precedent to this effect that you'd need a supreme Court ruling to change it.
- belorn 6y agoFeel free to link to the supreme court ruling that has a precedent which proves that creating new derivative works does not result in the author becoming an information content provider. To take an fictional twitter example, blocking a user from a website is unlikely to create a derivative work. Removing a post in the middle of a twitter chain that makes up a story could change the narrative and content of that story, and if done intentionally would create a derivative work. The user could then sue twitter for copyright infringement, and if the new story is defamatory, under liability laws. We could for example imagine a rape story where the post that includeded the word "Stop" was removed, where the author would then have a legit legal claim against the moderation. It all depend on context, intent, and the details of a specific case. The tools of moderation does not define what is legal and what is not.
- joshuamorton 6y agoIt comes down to intent. If the intent of moderation is "taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", section 230 provides immunity. "Otherwise objectionable" is very, very broad.
- belorn 6y agoTo that I 100% agree. if the intent of an moderation is only to restrict access to or availability of material for those reasons, then that is likely not a derivative work.