4 ms·

I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer

I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer service" and Section 230 is very explicit: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" In essence the point of section 230 is to allow social media platforms to provide content while not being considered the publisher. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

nradov 4y ago
The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Not quite right. Section 230 says that online services are not considered publishers when they provide services that allow other people to publish information online (ie, when they act like a platform, though the law doesn't use this term). However, they are considered publishers of content they create themselves. Thus the distinction between publisher and platform is who creates the content. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
- anthony_d 4y ago
  Of course normal usage doesn't matter. But do you have a legal definition of the word "platform"? If you don't have a legal definition, you're just spewing words. There is a legal distinction between a "computer system" that includes any normal usage of platform and a publisher. That's what the actual law says. Section 230 is surprisingly legible if you haven't read it yet. Do you remember 1996? There were a lot of systems then that would absolutely qualify as social media today, even if the term wasn't used then. Those things are what section 230 addresses. You seem to be making some sort of pedantic strawman argument and I can't tell what you're really trying to convey. Instead of phrasing it as a negative, is there something you're trying to positively affirm?
  - nradov 4y ago
    The law doesn't use the term "platform" so your point is moot.

nradov 4y ago

The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.

leereeves 4y ago
> Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Not quite right. Section 230 says that online services are not considered publishers when they provide services that allow other people to publish information online (ie, when they act like a platform, though the law doesn't use this term). However, they are considered publishers of content they create themselves. Thus the distinction between publisher and platform is who creates the content. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
anthony_d 4y ago
Of course normal usage doesn't matter. But do you have a legal definition of the word "platform"? If you don't have a legal definition, you're just spewing words. There is a legal distinction between a "computer system" that includes any normal usage of platform and a publisher. That's what the actual law says. Section 230 is surprisingly legible if you haven't read it yet. Do you remember 1996? There were a lot of systems then that would absolutely qualify as social media today, even if the term wasn't used then. Those things are what section 230 addresses. You seem to be making some sort of pedantic strawman argument and I can't tell what you're really trying to convey. Instead of phrasing it as a negative, is there something you're trying to positively affirm?
- nradov 4y ago
  The law doesn't use the term "platform" so your point is moot.