3 ms·
You're misremembering. 230 didn't really ever regard ISPs, it applied to what were functional web forums, CompuServe which didn't moderate and Prodigy which did
by joshuamorton 4y ago
You're misremembering. 230 didn't really ever regard ISPs, it applied to what were functional web forums, CompuServe which didn't moderate and Prodigy which did.
CompuServe didn't moderate at all, while Prodigy did moderate. The courts found Prodigy liable for content, because it chose to moderate some content. CompuServe was not liable because it left all content up. Congress wanted to encourage sites to moderate content without suddenly becoming liable for anything they failed to moderate, so 230 exists to shield sites who choose to moderate some content from becoming liable for all the other content that they fail to moderate in good faith (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history).
- phoehne 4y agoThanks. The crux of this is just about what they failed to moderate and if they were acting in good faith?
- jcranmer 4y agoThe crux is that the plaintiffs want to go after Google in any way they can, and they're grasping at straws to try to eviscerate §230 immunity. (No really, they're arguing that the URLs in search recommendations are original content that therefore doesn't get §230 immunity). §230 is explicitly pretty broad on immunity: it states that providers are neither liable for failing to moderate nor for the consequences of their moderation. "Good faith" is a requirement, but only for actions taken to restrict access to the material (i.e., it doesn't apply to a failure to moderate.)