3 ms·

I didn’t go far back enough other than parent. So apologies if this is out of context. But I don’t think the goal should be to attack 230, but a desired goal w

I didn’t go far back enough other than parent. So apologies if this is out of context. But I don’t think the goal should be to attack 230, but a desired goal would be stop platforms like Twitter and Facebook and YouTube to stop acting like a publisher. They are simply abusing 230 privileges while still acting like a publisher with editorial muscle.

nobody9999 6y ago
>But I don’t think the goal should be to attack 230, but a desired goal would be stop platforms like Twitter and Facebook and YouTube to stop acting like a publisher. They are simply abusing 230 privileges while still acting like a publisher with editorial muscle. The term "publisher" has no legal meaning in the context of section 230. I (and at least a half-dozen other folks) have explained this repeatedly in this discussion. I won't do so again, but in the interest of expanding knowledge, I'll point you over here[0] so you can understand the deal as it stands. If you (or anyone else) would like to see changes to Section 230, that's perfectly fine with me. I suggest you write your congressperson/senators and demand the changes for which you advocate. That said, what you are describing is not the law as it is now. Whether you (or I for that matter) agree or disagree, that's irrelevant to current jurisprudence. But we have ways to change our laws and we should take advantage of them where we feel it appropriate. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  never mind. i should have never commented. thanks.