3 ms·
Apparently not? See 'If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"' here: https://www.techdirt.co
by mwcremer 5y ago
Apparently not? See 'If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"' here: 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...
- fortuna86 5y agoVia proprietary and non-transparent algorithmic content recommendation engines, they have all been publishers for a while now.
- mwcremer 5y agoFTFA: To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
- cblconfederate 5y agothey dont need to be a publisher to be sued for defamation
- mwcremer 5y agoI suppose that depends on whether the courts agree that "flagging" is a form of original content, and is defamatory.
- cblconfederate 5y agoi wonder if the courts take into account how things have changed since 230 became law
- nobody9999 5y ago>i wonder if the courts take into account how things have changed since 230 became law One would hope that the courts follow the law. Anything else would be inappropriate, don't you think?