3 ms·

The just consequence should be that they should be considered publishers, rather than the republishers. And thus lose their 230 protection from civil litigation

• mcintyre1994 6y ago
  Isn’t the entire point of 230 to allow platforms to be moderated without being treated as publishers?
  • cft 6y ago
    No, the original point of 230 was to allow platforms to republish user content without bearing civil liability for such content.
    • dodobirdlord 6y ago
      No, the point was to allow platforms to republish user content and moderate it without bearing civil liability for the content. Case law prior to section 230 had established that platforms only had liability if they engaged in moderation, but had no liability if they did not moderate in any way. Section 230 was created to address that absurd result of existing law. Protecting platforms that engage in moderation is the whole point, platforms that don’t moderate are already protected. This is why nobody has suggested that AT&T would have civil liability for posts on Facebook even though their wires carry the post to you. Dumb pipes don’t accrue liability.
      • cft 6y ago
        Relying on the case law is much more expensive than relying on the US Code, since 230 allows to immediately go for the summary judgement, even if somebody still files a civil case. So the then smaller ISPs lobbied for that. The moderation clause was historically added because at that time, the failed CDA (Communication Decency Act) was likely to pass (later partially struck down by the Supreme Court). so the COngress added it as the implementation mechanism for the CDA. When the CDA was weakened, the moderation language was still left in 230. These latest chilling developments make me think it's better to revert to case law.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• trident1000 6y ago
  Its not even enough. Big tech is too dangerous to not regulate. When they literally decide if politicians get elected or not by controlling what the voters see, weve crossed the line.