4 ms·
The distinction lies in whether the service provider has rendered themselves a "publisher" under 230. The protection has historically been broadly interpreted b
by 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 agoYou 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 agoFrom 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."