6 ms·
Of course they’re not common carriers; that’s the whole problem. They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the
by catiopatio 4y ago
Of course they’re not common carriers; that’s the whole problem.
They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the CDA, but none of the responsibilities.
Refer to the “telecommunications” section of the Wikipedia page you’ve cited, where this specific topic is covered, along with additional references for further details.
- vel0city 4y agoSection 230 of the CDA never uses the term "common carrier". In fact, "Interactive computer service" was the exact phrase of language that ISPs successfully lobbied themselves to be classified as to avoid common carrier regulations. Being a "Interactive computer service" != being a "common carrier". Pointing to Section 230 as an example of "common carrier" statues is massively misunderstanding the "ISPs as common carriers" debate.
- catiopatio 4y ago
- hedora 4y agoOne of the other commenters (and also Texas...) claim they are common carriers.