3 ms·

You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely ha

You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely have to defend in court with difficulty.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> You omit the qualifications for that exemption No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here. > which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1). “Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Mountain_Skies' anecdote above certainly does not meet any form of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", nor does (say) any of the objective reporting & fair discussion of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, or other commonplace views normalized among fully half the population. Arbitrary culling of content which does not constitute "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" is exactly what "publisher" applies to, and which is the point of this thread. We can agree to disagree, while watching Kyle Rittenhouse sue Facebook (maybe not quite into oblivion, but the number of digits in the settlement check should be striking) and the court clarify exactly which of us is right to what degree. Popcorn?
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    The quote that got Facebook's independent fact checker's wrath: “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” There might be some extra context here. When I searched for Ralph Waldo Emerson censor Facebook, older articles about James Woods and Donald Trump using a very different Emerson quote popped up. Tech companies censored those so it may have made them overly sensitive to anything involving Emerson, perhaps even using automated systems that are still running (the locket photo that was sanitized for our protection was posted earlier this week).

You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely have to defend in court with difficulty.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You omit the qualifications for that exemption No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here. > which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1). “Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#

ctdonath 5y ago
Mountain_Skies' anecdote above certainly does not meet any form of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", nor does (say) any of the objective reporting & fair discussion of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, or other commonplace views normalized among fully half the population. Arbitrary culling of content which does not constitute "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" is exactly what "publisher" applies to, and which is the point of this thread. We can agree to disagree, while watching Kyle Rittenhouse sue Facebook (maybe not quite into oblivion, but the number of digits in the settlement check should be striking) and the court clarify exactly which of us is right to what degree. Popcorn?
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  The quote that got Facebook's independent fact checker's wrath: “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” There might be some extra context here. When I searched for Ralph Waldo Emerson censor Facebook, older articles about James Woods and Donald Trump using a very different Emerson quote popped up. Tech companies censored those so it may have made them overly sensitive to anything involving Emerson, perhaps even using automated systems that are still running (the locket photo that was sanitized for our protection was posted earlier this week).