4 ms·

No. 230 is why sites like geocities and tripod and blogger and livejournal and so on could exist in the first place.

by torstenvl 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago
Those sites are the beginnings of the centralization I’m talking about.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  Previously the liability was held by the ISP that hosted the individual website with objectionable content. Section 230 was written in response to a pair of lawsuits against ISPs, not against bigger webhosting firms like Geocities or Tripod. Without it there would be a strong incentive not to host anything by arbitrary unvetted customers.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The incentive would be to act as a dumb pipe, which absolved telecom providers from liability pre-230. (And still does today for unmoderated communications services)
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      There is no "dumb pipe" liability shield. There was no absolving of liability pre-230. And 230 — not some fairly tale alternative statute that mysteriously doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Code — is what provides that liability shield today, for moderated and unmoderated hosts and sites alike.
      - nostrademons 4y ago
        There sorta was - pre-230, the legal precedent was that "distributors" of content were absolved from any liability for it, while "publishers" of content were not. This was established in Smith vs. California, 1959 [1]. The issue was that in 1996, it was not yet clear whether ISPs, hosting companies, and web services counted as "publishers" or "distributors". Compuserve vs. Cubby Inc found that Compuserve was not liable for users' content because it didn't moderate (i.e. was a distributor), while Stratton Oakmont Inc vs. Prodigy Services found that it was liable because it did (i.e. was a publisher). Legislators felt that this setup a perverse incentive and so enacted 230 to that companies would not be penalized for good-faith attempts at moderation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...
        torstenvl 4y ago
        > Compuserve vs. Cubby Inc found that Compuserve was not liable for users' content because it didn't moderate That is incorrect. It was not liable because it didn't moderate (i.e., was a dumb-pipe distributor) and because it had no reason to know of the defamatory content. That latter piece is fact-intensive and case-specific. Which means expensive litigation in every case. Which is not remotely the same as a liability shield.

No. 230 is why sites like geocities and tripod and blogger and livejournal and so on could exist in the first place.

kube-system 4y ago

Those sites are the beginnings of the centralization I’m talking about.

nostrademons 4y ago
Previously the liability was held by the ISP that hosted the individual website with objectionable content. Section 230 was written in response to a pair of lawsuits against ISPs, not against bigger webhosting firms like Geocities or Tripod. Without it there would be a strong incentive not to host anything by arbitrary unvetted customers.
- kube-system 4y ago
  The incentive would be to act as a dumb pipe, which absolved telecom providers from liability pre-230. (And still does today for unmoderated communications services)
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    There is no "dumb pipe" liability shield. There was no absolving of liability pre-230. And 230 — not some fairly tale alternative statute that mysteriously doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Code — is what provides that liability shield today, for moderated and unmoderated hosts and sites alike.
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      There sorta was - pre-230, the legal precedent was that "distributors" of content were absolved from any liability for it, while "publishers" of content were not. This was established in Smith vs. California, 1959 [1]. The issue was that in 1996, it was not yet clear whether ISPs, hosting companies, and web services counted as "publishers" or "distributors". Compuserve vs. Cubby Inc found that Compuserve was not liable for users' content because it didn't moderate (i.e. was a distributor), while Stratton Oakmont Inc vs. Prodigy Services found that it was liable because it did (i.e. was a publisher). Legislators felt that this setup a perverse incentive and so enacted 230 to that companies would not be penalized for good-faith attempts at moderation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        > Compuserve vs. Cubby Inc found that Compuserve was not liable for users' content because it didn't moderate That is incorrect. It was not liable because it didn't moderate (i.e., was a dumb-pipe distributor) and because it had no reason to know of the defamatory content. That latter piece is fact-intensive and case-specific. Which means expensive litigation in every case. Which is not remotely the same as a liability shield.