3 ms·
That impression is correct; the precedent is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._Comp
by qball 6y ago
That impression is correct; the precedent is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.).
A lot of people don't really seem to understand that about S. 230- services that exist basically to pass messages have never needed the protection and that won't change. The best example outside of messaging services is probably content delivery networks, and I'll pick on CloudFlare because they're a great example.
As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes.
It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point.
It's also very interesting considering that the changes also appear to affect Patreon (and similar) and, perhaps a bigger deal, PayPal, since it's an interactive computer service used to fund the creation of information (among other things). In fact, I think that's an even bigger deal, because it's not necessarily traditional platforms banning certain people that causes them to be denied a platform these days, it's the inability of them to get funding in a way that isn't "send cash to this PO Box".
- judge2020 6y ago> As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. Except that they already do moderate based on content (malware, CP, etc) and don't have this immunity. The only reason they haven't been sued is because no lawyer or legal team is going to take on 8chan or random malware websites, and state-level DOJs don't have bad actors knocking on their door with the public's support behind them.
- luckylion 6y agoDoes CF actively look for malware, CP etc to throw them out, or are they responding to law enforcement in that regard? My understanding is that the hurdle to get something booted from CF is extremely high, which is why it's very well liked in both copy right infringement (torrents) and for general scammers trying to hide their server locations.
- judge2020 6y agoThey do periodically check Google safe browsing (or simply have a webhook for safe browsing) and disable websites that are flagged there. You can also submit the abuse report forum and CF regularly disabled websites for malware that haven't been detected by safesearch.
- salawat 6y agoPayPal was already screwed in the moderation department because there is no equivalent of common carrier for financial services. In fact, operating under the common carrier model as a financial service is strictly illegal. You have to vet your customers and perform best effort blocking of sanctioned individuals.