3 ms·
To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of
by di4na 4y ago
To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230.
There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and safety.
- Nasrudith 4y agoBullcrap. There is nothing to wiggle out of because they don't have any actual obligation. Terms of service are a mutual courtesy and not a legal contract. They cannot have you arrested or fined for posting swears on their Christian Minecraft server but they can ban you.
- comex 4y agoIf there’s an “I Agree” button you have to click, it’s a “clickwrap” contract, which courts in the US generally treat as enforceable. [1] If the terms are just linked somewhere, it’s a “browsewrap” contract, which may or may not be enforceable. [2] Other jurisdictions may differ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
- di4na 4y agoRight, the problem is the other way around. Like if you are doing something bad to someone else, like impersonating and using that to damage them. Even if the TOS says it is not allowed and the person impersonated come to the court and ask for this to stop, they are not obliged to do anything. At some point, we are going to have to be able to do something about it. At the very least have some ways to handle this kind of problems.