4 ms·

It appears the route the Administration will take is removing CDA 230 protection status for Twitter. CDA 230 protects Twitter from being held legally responsib

It appears the route the Administration will take is removing CDA 230 protection status for Twitter. CDA 230 protects Twitter from being held legally responsible for hosting the comments of the users. Without the 230 shield, anyone could sue Twitter for a comment they didn't like. The cost of defending these lawsuits alone would bury Twitter in legal expenses. IMO, such an executive order will be challenged in court, as there is no case law that supports the CDA 230 removal. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic

Simulacra 6y ago
Probably, but Section 230 needs reform. If this makes that happen sooner - in court or congress - so be it. We cannot depend on congress to do anything, so maybe it's time to push the issue a little.
ryandvm 6y ago
I don't get it. The entire CDA 230 thing strikes me as a kludge to begin with. CDA 230 protects social media platforms from being sued for content submitted by their users, but why in the hell is this even an issue in the first place? We don't have laws that allow me to sue Walmart if somebody in Walmart says something libelous about me. Why are social media platforms at particular risk for this?
- basch 6y ago
  Because their servers are the ones hosting, propagating, and broadcasting the messages. They are the ones serving the messages to readers.
  - ryandvm 6y ago
    Okay, but if somebody send me a death threat via FedEx, it's not FedEx's fault. How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? Does CDA 230 solve a problem that doesn't exist?
    - to11mtm 6y ago
      > How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? CDA 230 clarifies two previous cases. In one case Compuserve was found not liable [0], but in another prodigy was found as liable [1]. One major difference was that Prodigy had more 'content screening' and thus editorial control over the content. CDA 230 'solves' this in a very ham-fisted way; You can't be held liable so long as you're not letting users do something that the government finds illegal to facilitate, with your 'protection' being contingent on compliance with certain removal requests. IOW, the Feds and others can still hold a person/corporation liable if they host a website that wants to be the next silkroad or backpages. But if someone's just hosting a general purpose imageboard and some people are posting content that violates that same law, the host isn't in hot water until they refuse to comply with a lawful removal request. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

Simulacra 6y ago

Probably, but Section 230 needs reform. If this makes that happen sooner - in court or congress - so be it. We cannot depend on congress to do anything, so maybe it's time to push the issue a little.

ryandvm 6y ago

I don't get it. The entire CDA 230 thing strikes me as a kludge to begin with. CDA 230 protects social media platforms from being sued for content submitted by their users, but why in the hell is this even an issue in the first place? We don't have laws that allow me to sue Walmart if somebody in Walmart says something libelous about me. Why are social media platforms at particular risk for this?

basch 6y ago
Because their servers are the ones hosting, propagating, and broadcasting the messages. They are the ones serving the messages to readers.
- ryandvm 6y ago
  Okay, but if somebody send me a death threat via FedEx, it's not FedEx's fault. How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? Does CDA 230 solve a problem that doesn't exist?
  - to11mtm 6y ago
    > How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? CDA 230 clarifies two previous cases. In one case Compuserve was found not liable [0], but in another prodigy was found as liable [1]. One major difference was that Prodigy had more 'content screening' and thus editorial control over the content. CDA 230 'solves' this in a very ham-fisted way; You can't be held liable so long as you're not letting users do something that the government finds illegal to facilitate, with your 'protection' being contingent on compliance with certain removal requests. IOW, the Feds and others can still hold a person/corporation liable if they host a website that wants to be the next silkroad or backpages. But if someone's just hosting a general purpose imageboard and some people are posting content that violates that same law, the host isn't in hot water until they refuse to comply with a lawful removal request. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....