4 ms·
We are talking about censoring speech that is otherwise acceptable under the TOS, not “pics of your butt”.
by downandout 6y ago
We are talking about censoring speech that is otherwise acceptable under the TOS, not “pics of your butt”.
- anigbrowl 6y agoIt sounds like you are complaining about the inability to game the system (in this case the TOS) by demanding that all potential abuses be proscribed in advance or excluded from moderation.
- tesmar2 6y agoNo, we're saying that currently the platforms enjoy unlimited immunity. Courts have departed from the most natural reading of the text by giving internet companies immunity for their own content. Section 230(c)(1) protects a company only when content is "provided by /another/ information content provider". Nowhere does this provision protect a company that is itself the information content provider. And an information content provider is not just the primary author or creator, it is anyone "responsible, /in whole or in part/, for the creation of development" of the content. (words of justice Thomas)