3 ms·

So where do you stand on 230? Are private entities responsible for the content they host? If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who

So where do you stand on 230? Are private entities responsible for the content they host? If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue?

dlp211 6y ago
> So where do you stand on 230? I generally support 230. There may be some tweaks that could be made that I would support, but the general concept behind 230 is correct. > Are private entities responsible for the content they host? Generally no. Private entities are responsible for the content that they publish, not for the content that they host. An example being the comment section on a news site versus the news article on a news site. The latter is content that they published, the former is content that they host. > If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue? IANAL but I would imagine if 230 is repealed and some one libels you, you sue the platform and the content creator. If 230 isn't repealed you sue the content creator and ask for an injunction against the platform to remove the content.
- nahtnam 6y ago
  So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line?
  - davorak 6y ago
    > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line? IANL even if they called themselves a platform they would still be acting as a publisher and the law would treat them as such. For example they would be editing and curating content, paying for content from writers, and making the material available under their own name.
  - dlp211 6y ago
    > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Because the NYTimes pays staff to create it's content and exercises complete editorial control over said content, and thus is fully liable for the content published as news articles on its site. The NYTimes however is not liable for the content in the comments section on said news articles, though, they are allowed to remove comments that they do not wish to appear on their commenting platform. Twitter is also liable for content that it publishes, eg: what the Twitter support account posts. But it is not liable for the content that I, dlp211, post to Twitter. Twitter still retains the right to moderate their platform as they see fit. This applies to not just Twitter, but to every platform on the internet, from the Twitters and Facebooks and YouTubes to the MyNicheVBulletinBoard to Palor, 8Chan, and 4Chan. Now I have mentioned previously that I am open to tweaks. While I haven't thought deeply about it, I would be open to considering a tweak along the lines that the platform becomes a publisher when it promotes content via human or computer decision making. This may or may not be a good idea after I think about it more deeply and discuss it with others, but the point is that I am not of the opinion that 230 is the end all be all but I am also of the opinion that I would rather live in a world with 230 than without it. I say that as someone that believes that their politics would be greatly benefitted by the repeal of 230.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). That's what the law was before 230, except that it essentially applied to illegal content, as well, because of the company tried to actively moderate even for just illegal content then it became liable for all content (it had to be 100% right if it tried to moderate illegal content.) Being liable for only known illegal content is distributor, not publisher, liability, which is what it superficially looks like 230 does on its face (courts have applied 230 to provide no liability, not even distributor liability; expressly imposing distributor-style liability would be a modest reform.)

So where do you stand on 230? Are private entities responsible for the content they host? If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue?

dlp211 6y ago

> So where do you stand on 230? I generally support 230. There may be some tweaks that could be made that I would support, but the general concept behind 230 is correct. > Are private entities responsible for the content they host? Generally no. Private entities are responsible for the content that they publish, not for the content that they host. An example being the comment section on a news site versus the news article on a news site. The latter is content that they published, the former is content that they host. > If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue? IANAL but I would imagine if 230 is repealed and some one libels you, you sue the platform and the content creator. If 230 isn't repealed you sue the content creator and ask for an injunction against the platform to remove the content.

nahtnam 6y ago
So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line?
- davorak 6y ago
  > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line? IANL even if they called themselves a platform they would still be acting as a publisher and the law would treat them as such. For example they would be editing and curating content, paying for content from writers, and making the material available under their own name.
- dlp211 6y ago
  > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Because the NYTimes pays staff to create it's content and exercises complete editorial control over said content, and thus is fully liable for the content published as news articles on its site. The NYTimes however is not liable for the content in the comments section on said news articles, though, they are allowed to remove comments that they do not wish to appear on their commenting platform. Twitter is also liable for content that it publishes, eg: what the Twitter support account posts. But it is not liable for the content that I, dlp211, post to Twitter. Twitter still retains the right to moderate their platform as they see fit. This applies to not just Twitter, but to every platform on the internet, from the Twitters and Facebooks and YouTubes to the MyNicheVBulletinBoard to Palor, 8Chan, and 4Chan. Now I have mentioned previously that I am open to tweaks. While I haven't thought deeply about it, I would be open to considering a tweak along the lines that the platform becomes a publisher when it promotes content via human or computer decision making. This may or may not be a good idea after I think about it more deeply and discuss it with others, but the point is that I am not of the opinion that 230 is the end all be all but I am also of the opinion that I would rather live in a world with 230 than without it. I say that as someone that believes that their politics would be greatly benefitted by the repeal of 230.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). That's what the law was before 230, except that it essentially applied to illegal content, as well, because of the company tried to actively moderate even for just illegal content then it became liable for all content (it had to be 100% right if it tried to moderate illegal content.) Being liable for only known illegal content is distributor, not publisher, liability, which is what it superficially looks like 230 does on its face (courts have applied 230 to provide no liability, not even distributor liability; expressly imposing distributor-style liability would be a modest reform.)