3 ms·
You may want to read the actual arguments that are being made [1]. Keep in mind that the US Congress passed a law in the 1990s (including section 230) that say
by Kon-Peki 4y ago
You may want to read the actual arguments that are being made [1]. Keep in mind that the US Congress passed a law in the 1990s (including section 230) that says you can't sue someone for x, y, and z. But then they passed another law in the 2000s that says you can sue somebody for a, b, and c. Resolving this apparent contradiction is exactly the point of the Supreme Court taking up this case.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...
- amadeuspagel 4y ago> Third, the Ninth and Second Circuits erred in holding that section 230(c)(1) protects a defendant if it sends to a user content which the user did not actually request. A defendant is acting as the provider of an “interactive computer service,” and thus within the scope of section 230(c)(1), when it is providing “access...to a computer server.” A computer functions as a “server,” as that term is used in section 230, only when it is providing to a user a file (such as text, or a video), which the user has actually requested, or is performing other tasks (such as a search) at the request of the user. I don't even see how that's relevant. When I open youtube, I'm requesting recommendations. It's like a search, except I'm not searching for anything on a specific topic, but just for things that will interest me. (Some search engines, like HN's, allow an empty search, which in HN's case just shows all posts sorted by score[1]. Think of recommendations as a personalized empty search.) [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q= https://hn.algolia.com/?q=