6 ms·

I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring comp

I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging. That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency. This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit. I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think However, some companies do think that Section 230 shields them from all liability for their interactive computer services, and lower-level courts seem to agree with them[1]. The case here[1][2] has made its way to the Supreme Court[2], though. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2021/december/winning-through-losing/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...