4 ms·
> That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'. Under the intended
by treesprite82 5y ago
> That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'.
Under the intended changes, this would give them the same liabilities as non-digital publishers. Currently Section 230 provides special protections for digital services.
> Any argument which say that should be illegal seems also like an argument for why Ravelry can't decide for themselves to reject obviously non-knitting content divisive to the site.
It wouldn't be illegal, but the idea is that it'd be infeasible for infrastructure to act as a publisher.
E.G: Comcast couldn't block all anarchist content if acting as a common carrier. It'd require acting as a publisher, which comes with liabilities they're unlikely able to take on.
- eesmith 5y agoOkay, if "illegal" is the wrong word, then it would be "infeasible" for Ravelry to prohibit Trump discussions without taking on liabilities they are unlikely able to take on? Why does that make sense? The only options are "infrastructure" = "common carrier" and "provide editorial oversight on all materials?" What do other countries do?
- treesprite82 5y agoI don't know enough about Ravelry to say whether it'd be infeasible for them to take on the liabilities they'd have if they weren't a digital service, but I think we're on the same page now. As mentioned, I personally think there'd need to be something to account for "moderated forums/platforms" as an in-between (but not exactly sure how to do that without just recreating the current situation).