4 ms·

How does this track against Section 230? Now that there is concrete evidence that moderators are exempting people from the rules - aka selectively enforcing t

How does this track against Section 230? Now that there is concrete evidence that moderators are exempting people from the rules - aka selectively enforcing their own TOS/AUP - does that change their standing and protections?

runako 5y ago
IANAL, but Section 230 reads pretty clearly to me. Which part of 230 do you think might apply here? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- owl_troupe 5y ago
  The distinction lies in whether the service provider has rendered themselves a "publisher" under 230. The protection has historically been broadly interpreted but, in theory, Facebook could lose the protection if it chose, selectively, what content to promote or remove in violation of its own public TOS. Generally: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10306 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10306
  - pkilgore 5y ago
    You have case law for this claim? Or hell, I'll take a quote from your "source" you think supports it. (that's a trick question: No such case exists. What you say is not the law -- for anyone interested in a more-entertaining version summarizing the state of the law in this area than court decisions and statues, check out https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - runako 5y ago
    From a discussion of case history provided by your helpful link: "Generally, courts have said that a service’s ability to control the content that others post on its website is not enough, in and of itself, to make the service provider a content developer."
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  I have some theories but was hoping someone better informed than me would comment so I could learn more first and come to a more thoughtful position even if it's "not applicable". But hey, your easily googlable link is useful too.
pmyteh 5y ago
No. All that s.230 does is declare that platforms are not the 'publisher or speaker' of content provided by another 'information content provider'. It isn't a common carrier provision, so platforms are allowed to make whatever decisions they like about which people they're willing to host, or what TOS/AUP they want to enforce. For such a simple provision, it's astonishing how many people are writing bad (and sometimes bad-faith) takes on what it means. [Edit:] It's actually absolutely as straightforward as it appears. Which is not to say that it couldn't be changed (and there are reasonable arguments both ways) but confusing what is and what ought to be is a hugely annoying feature of many armchair legal analysts.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Many discussions are explicitly about what S230 ought to be though, not what it is. Most discussions I've seen start out by stating it was made for a 1996 bulletin board and is dated. It's long overdue to handle this blanket immunity that's being abused by social media behemoths. You don't have to be a lawyer to know something is a bad law and something is being abused.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    Sure. And people writing 's.230 allows Facebook to have its cake and eat it, by allowing them to control their content and yet have immunity from responsibility for that which they choose to leave up' have a point. But there's an awful lot of people arguing that this or that moderation decision means that Facebook 'have now moved from being a platform to a publisher' and should be sued. Normally when Facebook have taken down something the commentator agrees with, or have left up something they think is harmful. s.230 has no platform/publisher trade-off. If you're an intermediary and not the original information provider you are expressly not the speaker or publisher, irrespective of your editorial choices. That's the whole point of the provision. And it's really straightforward. A lot of people seem to want to muddy the waters, and they shouldn't.
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      Thanks for the additional context. As written, nothing changes with this not-revelation, revelation with respect to Section 230. It does recolor some of their statements about consistent treatment and enforcement but those are other matters.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

runako 5y ago

IANAL, but Section 230 reads pretty clearly to me. Which part of 230 do you think might apply here? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

owl_troupe 5y ago
The distinction lies in whether the service provider has rendered themselves a "publisher" under 230. The protection has historically been broadly interpreted but, in theory, Facebook could lose the protection if it chose, selectively, what content to promote or remove in violation of its own public TOS. Generally: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10306 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10306
- pkilgore 5y ago
  You have case law for this claim? Or hell, I'll take a quote from your "source" you think supports it. (that's a trick question: No such case exists. What you say is not the law -- for anyone interested in a more-entertaining version summarizing the state of the law in this area than court decisions and statues, check out https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- runako 5y ago
  From a discussion of case history provided by your helpful link: "Generally, courts have said that a service’s ability to control the content that others post on its website is not enough, in and of itself, to make the service provider a content developer."
caseysoftware 5y ago
I have some theories but was hoping someone better informed than me would comment so I could learn more first and come to a more thoughtful position even if it's "not applicable". But hey, your easily googlable link is useful too.

pmyteh 5y ago

No. All that s.230 does is declare that platforms are not the 'publisher or speaker' of content provided by another 'information content provider'. It isn't a common carrier provision, so platforms are allowed to make whatever decisions they like about which people they're willing to host, or what TOS/AUP they want to enforce. For such a simple provision, it's astonishing how many people are writing bad (and sometimes bad-faith) takes on what it means. [Edit:] It's actually absolutely as straightforward as it appears. Which is not to say that it couldn't be changed (and there are reasonable arguments both ways) but confusing what is and what ought to be is a hugely annoying feature of many armchair legal analysts.

hunterb123 5y ago
Many discussions are explicitly about what S230 ought to be though, not what it is. Most discussions I've seen start out by stating it was made for a 1996 bulletin board and is dated. It's long overdue to handle this blanket immunity that's being abused by social media behemoths. You don't have to be a lawyer to know something is a bad law and something is being abused.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  Sure. And people writing 's.230 allows Facebook to have its cake and eat it, by allowing them to control their content and yet have immunity from responsibility for that which they choose to leave up' have a point. But there's an awful lot of people arguing that this or that moderation decision means that Facebook 'have now moved from being a platform to a publisher' and should be sued. Normally when Facebook have taken down something the commentator agrees with, or have left up something they think is harmful. s.230 has no platform/publisher trade-off. If you're an intermediary and not the original information provider you are expressly not the speaker or publisher, irrespective of your editorial choices. That's the whole point of the provision. And it's really straightforward. A lot of people seem to want to muddy the waters, and they shouldn't.
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    Thanks for the additional context. As written, nothing changes with this not-revelation, revelation with respect to Section 230. It does recolor some of their statements about consistent treatment and enforcement but those are other matters.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]