5 ms·

That’s an interesting train of thought. I also wonder about content that’s been modified in some significant way (fact check labels not clearly separated from

by lovecg 6y ago

That’s an interesting train of thought. I also wonder about content that’s been modified in some significant way (fact check labels not clearly separated from the content itself for example) by the provider: is there a point where the provider could become liable? I.e. if I made a joke website where you could post comments and it would auto-replace any mention of “topkai22” with “the notorious scoundrel topkai22”, could you sue me directly?

zerocrates 6y ago
Information that a provider creates itself isn't covered at all by 230, so they're potentially liable for things that don't originate from users like fact check labels no matter how they're applied. That's one of the many silly things about the usual 230 discourse: one of the earlier flashpoints was around things like Facebook and Twitter flagging "misinformation" and the like, when they don't actually get any protection under 230 for those labels, since they're writing them themselves.
- topkai22 6y ago
  Have the "misinformation" flags been tested in court? It seems like that could possibly be covered by the "Good Samaritan" provision, although it seems it would hinge on if the definition of "restrict access to or availability of material" would including additional labeling rather than flat out blocking.
- onionisafruit 6y ago
  Facebook went with the model of using third parties for fact checking. That lets them claim they are just a platform for the fact checkers.
topkai22 6y ago
I think that one is pretty clear- you are providing the phrase "notorious scoundrel", so you are the provider of that information. A subtler one is a site that only surfaced snippets about a subject. It wouldn't be that hard to write an algorithm that surfaces only negative segments about a subject, or to automatically quote out of context. Surely that is transformative, but the information is still coming from the original authors. Seems like that part might be untested law.

by lovecg 6y ago

zerocrates 6y ago

Information that a provider creates itself isn't covered at all by 230, so they're potentially liable for things that don't originate from users like fact check labels no matter how they're applied. That's one of the many silly things about the usual 230 discourse: one of the earlier flashpoints was around things like Facebook and Twitter flagging "misinformation" and the like, when they don't actually get any protection under 230 for those labels, since they're writing them themselves.

topkai22 6y ago
Have the "misinformation" flags been tested in court? It seems like that could possibly be covered by the "Good Samaritan" provision, although it seems it would hinge on if the definition of "restrict access to or availability of material" would including additional labeling rather than flat out blocking.
onionisafruit 6y ago
Facebook went with the model of using third parties for fact checking. That lets them claim they are just a platform for the fact checkers.

topkai22 6y ago

I think that one is pretty clear- you are providing the phrase "notorious scoundrel", so you are the provider of that information. A subtler one is a site that only surfaced snippets about a subject. It wouldn't be that hard to write an algorithm that surfaces only negative segments about a subject, or to automatically quote out of context. Surely that is transformative, but the information is still coming from the original authors. Seems like that part might be untested law.