4 ms·
I remember when DCMA passed, and everyone assumed that "safe harbor" meant that if a provider moderated or policed the content, then that service would be liabl
by indymike 4y ago
I remember when DCMA passed, and everyone assumed that "safe harbor" meant that if a provider moderated or policed the content, then that service would be liable. If they just allowed things to pass through, not unlike the phone company, then the company could claim safe harbor. The law was designed to shield ISPs and online services from liability for what their users did with the service, not to enable content filtering and moderation... and in many ways it is the opposite of the intent of congress, which was just trying to make it so you wouldn't be sued into oblivion because a user of your service did something bad.
- singleshot_ 4y ago“Section 230 was intended to clarify that the government would not impose liability on internet companies even if they moderated their content.” -Jeff Kosseff How come you and Jeff Kosseff seem to think opposite ideas about whether 230 was intended to enable content providers to moderate content? I wonder who is right.
- indymike 4y agoSafe harbor is 512 not 230. 230 was added to DMCA as part of the Communications Decency Act as I recall
- singleshot_ 4y agoOh, my bad. I stand corrected. Thank you for your patience.