3 ms·

I started reading this in the smug knowledge that I knew it already, that I wasn't wrong about 230. But then I saw this passage: > The "user" protections get

I started reading this in the smug knowledge that I knew it already, that I wasn't wrong about 230. But then I saw this passage: > The "user" protections get less attention, but they're right there in the important 26 words. "No provider or __user__ of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker...." That's why there are cases like Barrett v. Rosenthal where someone who forwarded an email to a mailing list was held to be protected by Section 230, as a user of an interactive computer service who did not write the underlying material that was forwarded. I didn't know that! I guess I was wrong about Section 230 :)

elliekelly 6y ago
I feel like I’ve said this a hundred times in the last 30 days but you should read the book “The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet” for a really good history of why we have Sec. 230 and what it was intended to “solve”. It’s an interesting topic that’s the subject of intense debate amongst people on both sides who don’t fully understand the subject they’re arguing about but are convinced they do.
- techer 6y ago
  Well thanks for saying it one more time as I missed the previous hundred. Will read.