3 ms·

The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on

The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. If Facebook publishes an illegal blog post or attaches its own content... I mean, it would at least need to make a case that it wasn't making the fact check itself, that this was an API or something. I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it. Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it. > Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content. It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.) > Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.
- djoldman 5y ago
  I'm interested as to whether the courts would consider this fact checking content as Facebook's or a third-party's. If the third party did not explicitly cause the content to be put in this specific "fact check" area, did they create it for the purpose of libel? Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.
- danShumway 5y ago
  My bad, I didn't realize that Facebook's fact-checking worked that way, I thought this stuff was an in-house decision just using 3rd-party sources to help inform it. Thanks for the correction. Given that information, I should revise: Section 230 will protect Facebook from liability for a 3rd-party-driven fact check, but even if it didn't this still doesn't look like it rises to the level of defamation for Facebook. So even if Section 230 was repealed, Facebook would still likely win this case (although Section 230 applicability will probably allow them to dismiss it faster). I don't want people to think that this is obviously defamation, but Section 230 happens to be blocking Facebook from consequences. This being 3rd-party content makes Facebook's position much stronger, but I still think they would most likely win this case even if Zuckerberg himself had labeled the article as misleading under the direction of Facebook's board.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it. > Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content. It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.) > Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.

djoldman 5y ago
I'm interested as to whether the courts would consider this fact checking content as Facebook's or a third-party's. If the third party did not explicitly cause the content to be put in this specific "fact check" area, did they create it for the purpose of libel? Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.
danShumway 5y ago
My bad, I didn't realize that Facebook's fact-checking worked that way, I thought this stuff was an in-house decision just using 3rd-party sources to help inform it. Thanks for the correction. Given that information, I should revise: Section 230 will protect Facebook from liability for a 3rd-party-driven fact check, but even if it didn't this still doesn't look like it rises to the level of defamation for Facebook. So even if Section 230 was repealed, Facebook would still likely win this case (although Section 230 applicability will probably allow them to dismiss it faster). I don't want people to think that this is obviously defamation, but Section 230 happens to be blocking Facebook from consequences. This being 3rd-party content makes Facebook's position much stronger, but I still think they would most likely win this case even if Zuckerberg himself had labeled the article as misleading under the direction of Facebook's board.