2 ms·
I am actually incredibly widely versed in the Section 230 discourse. Literally all of the sources trace back to Google-funded "authorities", which can't back th
by ocdtrekkie 4y ago
I am actually incredibly widely versed in the Section 230 discourse. Literally all of the sources trace back to Google-funded "authorities", which can't back their argument with any meaningful legal concepts.
The entire pitch for 230 is a wild astroturf project. And as a recent non-American pointed out, it's paper thin when you realize no other country has an equivalent immunity law, and all of them allow user generated content.
A comedic example is the claim I've seen that Mastodon servers can't survive without Section 230, but the largest one is in Germany, where no such blanket immunity exists.
- ryukafalz 4y agoI mean, having intermediary liability (as you would absent section 230) doesn't mean you're immediately forced to shut down. Prodigy had been around for just over 10 years before the Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ruling, after all. It does however mean that if you do get sued over third party content on your site, you will probably lose, which is an expensive possibility for any small site operator.
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoThat's a huge assumption based on a single extremely ancient case, that completely flies in the face of any reasonable application of the law.