4 ms·
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
by 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 agoHave 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 agoFacebook went with the model of using third parties for fact checking. That lets them claim they are just a platform for the fact checkers.