3 ms·
The "publisher" versus "platform" distinction is 100% a made-up distinction to motivate bad §230 takes. What §230 does, very simply, is say that websites posti
by jcranmer 5y ago
The "publisher" versus "platform" distinction is 100% a made-up distinction to motivate bad §230 takes.
What §230 does, very simply, is say that websites posting user-generated content are not liable for that content, even if they moderate the content. It was passed in response to a pair of court decisions that concluded that a website that moderated content (including, for example, weeding out profanity or pornography) was liable for all content posted, and a website that provided no moderation whatsoever wasn't liable.
- criddell 5y agoThanks for clarification. I finally looked up the actual text of §230 and it says this: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So I guess the NYT would be responsible for articles they generate but I suppose they would get a pass for anything they re-publish (like from a wire service).
- pmyteh 5y ago> So I guess the NYT would be responsible for articles they generate but I suppose they would get a pass for anything they re-publish (like from a wire service). Exactly. Though, interestingly, the second part of your statement is only true for the online edition. For NYT-on-paper, they're liable for all of it. The same with the comments section: online, it's covered by s.230; offline, the 'letters to the editor' section in print is the responsibility of the paper.