3 ms·
That is exactly what section 230 already does. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Whats being talke
by blhack 6y ago
That is exactly what section 230 already does.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Whats being talked about here is stripping the assumption that twitter is acting in good faith, and therefore removing the protection they get from this section.
- jellicle 6y agoSo much confusion about this. What the prior commenter describes is exactly the OPPOSITE of what section 230 does. Under current law, companies are free to - specifically encouraged to - moderate and delete content as much as they want, while they are also immunized from being treated as the publisher of that content and immunized from any liability for that moderation and deletion of content.
- blhack 6y agoSection 230 is outlining a way in which an internet service can be exempted from liability. What part of this is causing you to read it another way?
- jakelazaroff 6y agoSection 230 shields platform operators from liability for user-generated content. It does not set conditions for immunity such as not moderating. In fact, it was arguably created expressly to prevent this publisher/distributor dichotomy. Look at the cases against Prodigy and Compuserve for examples of the ambiguity Section 230 was introduced to resolve.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoRight. The historical context for Section 230 is that some providers that were trying to offer a family-safe online service (e.g. Prodigy) by moderating the content available, and therefore became liable as publishers. In fact, if you read Section 230 in its entirety, you can see that it is intended to encourage moderation of content based on what the provider considers to be objectionable.