3 ms·
> some sort of obligation to allow free speech Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate conten
by ch4s3 6y ago
> some sort of obligation to allow free speech
Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate content that “one may find objectionable”, which could basically be anything.
- notahacker 6y agoThe text of the law is a mess: it gives content providers the ability to define whatever moderation policy they want, but also gives objectors the right to sue for punitive damages in the event that they disagree with how it is applied, with their claims being judged by an whether they uphold undefined 'fair dealing standards'. It's not so much an attempt to defend free speech as to bury the affected companies in litigation if their moderation policies aren't either nonexistent or up front and aggressive: exactly the situation Section 230 was written to avoid. It's just in this case the lawsuits will come from the parties seeking to cause offence rather than the offended.
- ch4s3 6y agoI can see how it could be read that way, but are content providers really buried in litigation in practice? I actually don't have much insight here personally, so I'm quite curious.
- Nasrudith 6y agoNo because have section 230 protections in the first place. They can arbitrarily start playing Mao and banning people for arbitrady undisclosed reasons and it would be legal. That is a major Chesterton's fence.