3 ms·
"The ability to curate their content" does not come from section 230, it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the prohibition against compelled speech. All
by Analemma_ 4y ago
"The ability to curate their content" does not come from section 230, it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the prohibition against compelled speech. All Section 230 does is ensure that a site which does more moderation is not exposed to more liability than a site which does less.
Between this and your other comment above, you seem very confused as to what Section 230 actually says. I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here. Unnecessary. I am aware. It allows you to moderate yet still be treated as a neutral non-moderated purveyor of information.
- mrguyorama 4y agoNo, it allows you to attempt to moderate all illegal content, and not be punished if you miss some. It doesn't have anything to do with curation vs dumb firehose. It was made to allow websites to have user generated content without fear of the obvious result of user generated content. Without section 230, or the protections it provides, website operators are liable for the crap that users put on their website. Zuckerberg would not open himself up to liability, he would lock down posting anything on facebook that wasn't extremely, obviously mundane, and probably try to pivot.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIt doesn't say illegal, it says good Samaritan blocking of objectionable material. If it doesn't have anything to do with curation (publisher) vs firehose then what does this mean: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker What is a publisher and why do they need to say this? What distinction is there? Were they treated as a publisher before Section 230?