5 ms·
This article is really about testing the limits of Section 230[0][1][2]. Specifically section 47 U.S. Code § 230 "No provider or user of an interactive compute
by hi 4y ago
This article is really about testing the limits of Section 230[0][1][2].
Specifically section 47 U.S. Code § 230 "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"[3]
[0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46751 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46751
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- Gigachad 4y agoThis could still be true. They could not be responsible but still implement some KYC requirements so those affected have a legal entity to go after rather than just being told it’s some random account behind a vpn.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoDoes that protect the users who upload these things? It seems to imply protection for users who upload this content since they are not considered the publisher.