3 ms·

This is not what Section 230 says and it is never what Section 230 has said. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-wo

This is not what Section 230 says and it is never what Section 230 has said. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

jimmydorry 6y ago
You're going to need to be a bit more specific as your article offers a very similar interpretaiton of platform vs publisher (without using those terms), to what I presented. The only thing of note I see in your article is a "deep dive" into figuring out the "original intention" behind the law. I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. Section 230 has never been applied this way. Some people want to change it, but they haven't yet. There is no legal precedent that those people have to stand behind. You're asking the courts to change the law based on executive preference. That's dangerous for a wide variety of reasons (ex-post-facto-ness, separation of powers, etc.) In case you didn't understand the parent, section 230 was written to fix the issue that prodigy had. All section 230 does is protect people who moderate content from civil liability. That's it. The law itself doesn't distinguish platforms or publishers. It distinguishes first-party and third-party content (and gives you protection for third party content, even if you publish first party content and moderate the third party content). That's all. Nothing about platforms or publishers, and nothing about categorizing a company as one or the other. Only protection around certain kinds of content.
  - jimmydorry 6y ago
    From GP's article: >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content. There is precedent, but you are right in that the whole space has been allowed to act unchalleneged for so long. This is something that needs to change and we need a modern precedent to point at.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      No, I'll reiterate my prior comment: Section 230 was written to fix that glitch. The law, as written, doesn't allow that to happen. The cases you're citing predate the law, so they aren't precedent on how the law should be handled. If you want actual precendent, here's some: - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communications-systems-inc-v-lycos-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communicat... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccbill-llc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccb... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-media https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-m... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc That basically all says that the provider can't be held liable even if they moderate things, due to 230, the most recent in that list is from 2011, but there are more recent rulings that exist. Here's matching precedent from 2018/19: https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...

jimmydorry 6y ago

You're going to need to be a bit more specific as your article offers a very similar interpretaiton of platform vs publisher (without using those terms), to what I presented. The only thing of note I see in your article is a "deep dive" into figuring out the "original intention" behind the law. I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. Section 230 has never been applied this way. Some people want to change it, but they haven't yet. There is no legal precedent that those people have to stand behind. You're asking the courts to change the law based on executive preference. That's dangerous for a wide variety of reasons (ex-post-facto-ness, separation of powers, etc.) In case you didn't understand the parent, section 230 was written to fix the issue that prodigy had. All section 230 does is protect people who moderate content from civil liability. That's it. The law itself doesn't distinguish platforms or publishers. It distinguishes first-party and third-party content (and gives you protection for third party content, even if you publish first party content and moderate the third party content). That's all. Nothing about platforms or publishers, and nothing about categorizing a company as one or the other. Only protection around certain kinds of content.
- jimmydorry 6y ago
  From GP's article: >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content. There is precedent, but you are right in that the whole space has been allowed to act unchalleneged for so long. This is something that needs to change and we need a modern precedent to point at.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    No, I'll reiterate my prior comment: Section 230 was written to fix that glitch. The law, as written, doesn't allow that to happen. The cases you're citing predate the law, so they aren't precedent on how the law should be handled. If you want actual precendent, here's some: - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communications-systems-inc-v-lycos-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communicat... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccbill-llc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccb... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-media https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-m... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc That basically all says that the provider can't be held liable even if they moderate things, due to 230, the most recent in that list is from 2011, but there are more recent rulings that exist. Here's matching precedent from 2018/19: https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...