4 ms·

If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section

If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section 230 like the tech "platforms"? I mean CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. have big digital footprints, hire teams of engineers, publish "user-generated" content (i.e. comment sections), host videos, etc. Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield? It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)

krapp 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer. If you're actually interested in an answer, and not simply trying to score points, ask a lawyer. But my layman's guess is that the case isn't as simple as "the law is a joke or else CNN/FOX etc. could be immune from all libel and defamation lawsuits." I'm assuming there's some subtlety involved that you're unaware of, otherwise those media companies are simply stupid for not seeing something so obvious. I'm sure I could do the research myself, find the answer and compose a response detailing, with sources and footnotes, the reason your interpretation of the law is in error, but my experience on this forum has shown me that such efforts quickly lead to diminishing returns, and I have better ways to spend my time. Also, Section 230 isn't vague. You can find the text of it here[0]. It's quite simple and straightforward as these things go. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
perl4ever 5y ago
>Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? All the people you mention, whether media or tech, are employees of their respective companies, so I wouldn't think any of them are protected by 230. They aren't third party content providers. I don't understand where anything you mention represents a double standard. And you seem to be referring to hypotheticals with the leaders of Facebook and Google, so that makes it even more confusing.

krapp 5y ago

I'm not a lawyer. If you're actually interested in an answer, and not simply trying to score points, ask a lawyer. But my layman's guess is that the case isn't as simple as "the law is a joke or else CNN/FOX etc. could be immune from all libel and defamation lawsuits." I'm assuming there's some subtlety involved that you're unaware of, otherwise those media companies are simply stupid for not seeing something so obvious. I'm sure I could do the research myself, find the answer and compose a response detailing, with sources and footnotes, the reason your interpretation of the law is in error, but my experience on this forum has shown me that such efforts quickly lead to diminishing returns, and I have better ways to spend my time. Also, Section 230 isn't vague. You can find the text of it here[0]. It's quite simple and straightforward as these things go. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

perl4ever 5y ago

>Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? All the people you mention, whether media or tech, are employees of their respective companies, so I wouldn't think any of them are protected by 230. They aren't third party content providers. I don't understand where anything you mention represents a double standard. And you seem to be referring to hypotheticals with the leaders of Facebook and Google, so that makes it even more confusing.