3 ms·

[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own, caveat emptor, etc.] This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think y

[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own, caveat emptor, etc.] This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think you've got this backwards. A company that wants to comply here needs Section 230 to exist, a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230. Section 230 immunity isn't necessary for things that are completely unmoderated. If the comment sections are literally entirely unmoderated, they fall under the pre-existing statute (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc). However, if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
> a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230 This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility. Even all of Google's direct competition in any given market needs to support Google in other markets. Google is inescapable and compliance with their policies is as mandatory as actual law.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem. You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The old guard Journalists tried to fabricate "techlash" out of thin air. They are lying and showing themselves to be hypocrites. Look at the softballs given to power and abusers but as soon as they see a scapegoat for their business sucking the knives come out.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

> a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230 This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility. Even all of Google's direct competition in any given market needs to support Google in other markets. Google is inescapable and compliance with their policies is as mandatory as actual law.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

> if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem. You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.

Nasrudith 6y ago
The old guard Journalists tried to fabricate "techlash" out of thin air. They are lying and showing themselves to be hypocrites. Look at the softballs given to power and abusers but as soon as they see a scapegoat for their business sucking the knives come out.