3 ms·

>obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable The intent is clear from this list. It even implicitly allows vi

>obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable The intent is clear from this list. It even implicitly allows violence as long as it's not excessive. It does not include anything about truth, or difference of opinion, or statements that aren't "backed by the science". It also requires a "good faith" interpretation, which would be irrelevant if hosts were allowed to act on any criteria they wish.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Otherwise objectionable is so broad a fig leaf it could shade a continent. Just because they called out excessive violence does not mean a platform need tolerate any violence. Good faith is only relevant to immunity from suits by people whose content was moderated not in terms of liability for other parties communications which is inviolate in all cases. A finding of bad faith would then pertain exclusively to the particular act or acts of moderation and would not effect the platforms immunity for either other acts of moderation or for other parties speech. There is no act by which a companies 230 protection may be in general dissolved. Furthermore absent 230 protection for act or acts of moderation those moderated would have little just cause to bring anything but fraudulent frivolous lawsuits because you in truth have little right to be heard on someone else's website. That is to say finding bad faith would only open the door to lawsuits it wouldn't be a cause in and of itself. Say I banned you from my site because I don't like blond people but lied and said it was for breaking site rules. I might be acting in bad faith but as you have no particular right to access or post content on my site so the judge would find my bad faith may cost me protection under 230 but nothing else. This is probably why there wasn't a notable finding of bad faith that helped the blocked party between 1996 and 2019. In 2019 we finally had Malwarebytes v Enigma wherein Enigma sued Malwarebytes labeling it's software as a possibility unwanted program and advising it's users not to install it. The 9th circuit found it was in bad faith discouraging competition. If your issue is Facebook and Twitter silencing some viewpoints this is hardly encouraging as there are few parallels.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Otherwise objectionable is so broad a fig leaf it could shade a continent. Just because they called out excessive violence does not mean a platform need tolerate any violence. Good faith is only relevant to immunity from suits by people whose content was moderated not in terms of liability for other parties communications which is inviolate in all cases. A finding of bad faith would then pertain exclusively to the particular act or acts of moderation and would not effect the platforms immunity for either other acts of moderation or for other parties speech. There is no act by which a companies 230 protection may be in general dissolved. Furthermore absent 230 protection for act or acts of moderation those moderated would have little just cause to bring anything but fraudulent frivolous lawsuits because you in truth have little right to be heard on someone else's website. That is to say finding bad faith would only open the door to lawsuits it wouldn't be a cause in and of itself. Say I banned you from my site because I don't like blond people but lied and said it was for breaking site rules. I might be acting in bad faith but as you have no particular right to access or post content on my site so the judge would find my bad faith may cost me protection under 230 but nothing else. This is probably why there wasn't a notable finding of bad faith that helped the blocked party between 1996 and 2019. In 2019 we finally had Malwarebytes v Enigma wherein Enigma sued Malwarebytes labeling it's software as a possibility unwanted program and advising it's users not to install it. The 9th circuit found it was in bad faith discouraging competition. If your issue is Facebook and Twitter silencing some viewpoints this is hardly encouraging as there are few parallels.