3 ms·

Isn't this kind of the core of Section 230 protection?

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Isn't this kind of the core of Section 230 protection? No, the opposite: § 230 exists to protect platform’s (and user’s, to the extent they have control of these things) ability to pick and choose when to promote, demote, or outright block third-party content—based on their view of what is worthy or objectionable or somewhere in between—and how to present the content they do present, without being exposed to either publisher liability for what they present or how they present it or any liability for the decisions they make to block content based on their view of what is objectionable. It exists to enable the polar opposite of neutrality by all parties involved.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > > Isn't this kind of the core of Section 230 protection? > No, the opposite As an illustration of this point, when Florida recently adopted a law intended to impose the kind of neutrality requirement you ascribe to § 230 on to social media providers, the federal court order preventing enforcement of that law found that it was invalid for several reasons, but the first one cited was that the the Florida law violated the protections in § 230. https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NetChoice-v.-Moody-PI-decision.pdf https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NetChoice-v...
  • dls2016 5y ago
    Thanks, I should really look into this more closely.