3 ms·

There’s a difference between what happened to Parler (vendors refusing to do business with them) and Facebook (relatively more self reliant).

shockeychap 6y ago
Isn't Facebook dependent on backbone service providers at their data centers? Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service? Edit: For a multitude of reasons - money, money, and money - I don't expect any vendors would discontinue service with Facebook. The question is more of a thought exercise.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ethanbond 6y ago
  > Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service? Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    > Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on. That's not true. Laws supercede contracts. You cannot write a contract that creates new law between parties.
    - mminer237 6y ago
      There is no relevant law that would require Facebook or Parler to do any moderation because of Section 230, right?
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        You are talking about something different. I had replied to a comment which said Facebook breaking the contract they have with their backbone provider is the only way their provider can terminate the connection. That's clearly false. There are many laws outside of the CDA.
      - bzbarsky 6y ago
        That's not correct, as I understand it. Section 230 says that you can't be held liable for content on your site that you did not create yourself, even if you generally moderate your content (i.e. are not just a common carrier). But there are still laws that require you to _remove_ certain content (child porn comes to mind, but also material that infringes copyrights, etc) once you are aware of it. Concretely, given this sequence of events: 1. You have a web site that allows people to post pictures. You moderate them some. 2. Someone who is not you or one of your employees/contractors posts child porn. 3. Before your moderators notice it, someone else sees it and reports it to the FBI. 4. You remove the child porn (based on normal moderation getting to it, or you getting notified by the person from item 3 or by the FBI). my understanding is that Section 230 means that there is no legal liability on your part, as long as step 4 actually happens once you become aware of the content.
        mminer237 6y ago
        Sorry, "any moderation" might have been a bit of a stretch. I definitely could have worded that better. If the authorities find it and tell you to take it down, you would obviously still have to comply. I just meant that I don't think it requires you to be proactive and monitor for things like that. You just have to react. Amazon was upset that Parler wasn't be proactive enough, not that it wasn't complying with court orders or something. I don't think Parler did anything illegal, so it would just all be up to their contracts.

shockeychap 6y ago

Isn't Facebook dependent on backbone service providers at their data centers? Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service? Edit: For a multitude of reasons - money, money, and money - I don't expect any vendors would discontinue service with Facebook. The question is more of a thought exercise.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 6y ago
> Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service? Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  > Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on. That's not true. Laws supercede contracts. You cannot write a contract that creates new law between parties.
  - mminer237 6y ago
    There is no relevant law that would require Facebook or Parler to do any moderation because of Section 230, right?
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      You are talking about something different. I had replied to a comment which said Facebook breaking the contract they have with their backbone provider is the only way their provider can terminate the connection. That's clearly false. There are many laws outside of the CDA.
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      That's not correct, as I understand it. Section 230 says that you can't be held liable for content on your site that you did not create yourself, even if you generally moderate your content (i.e. are not just a common carrier). But there are still laws that require you to _remove_ certain content (child porn comes to mind, but also material that infringes copyrights, etc) once you are aware of it. Concretely, given this sequence of events: 1. You have a web site that allows people to post pictures. You moderate them some. 2. Someone who is not you or one of your employees/contractors posts child porn. 3. Before your moderators notice it, someone else sees it and reports it to the FBI. 4. You remove the child porn (based on normal moderation getting to it, or you getting notified by the person from item 3 or by the FBI). my understanding is that Section 230 means that there is no legal liability on your part, as long as step 4 actually happens once you become aware of the content.
      - mminer237 6y ago
        Sorry, "any moderation" might have been a bit of a stretch. I definitely could have worded that better. If the authorities find it and tell you to take it down, you would obviously still have to comply. I just meant that I don't think it requires you to be proactive and monitor for things like that. You just have to react. Amazon was upset that Parler wasn't be proactive enough, not that it wasn't complying with court orders or something. I don't think Parler did anything illegal, so it would just all be up to their contracts.