4 ms·

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

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....

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....