4 ms·
> 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 rulin
by 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.