3 ms·

Wonderful news. If how the US Internet is regulated - how it functions at its core as a result of liability - is going to change, it should be done through acti

Wonderful news. If how the US Internet is regulated - how it functions at its core as a result of liability - is going to change, it should be done through actions by Congress. If social media companies were guilty, then so is every newspaper that spreads news of terrorist events, supposedly providing a platform for terrorism (which would also be the argument in cases of eg mass shooters that seek attention, copying prior mass shootings that are heavily publicized by the press/media/news). It's an excellent outcome that they're not guilty in this case. I'm glad to see the justices so relatively united.

User23 3y ago
Newspapers are publishers and are liable for what they print. That's the point of section 230, Twitter is not legally a publisher.
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  Where is the line between choosing what people see and exerting editorial control over what to print? If a newspaper puts up a dark corner of their website that gives people labyrinthine access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish, are they no longer liable for the content they post and promote on their main site?
  - favorited 3y ago
    > access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish You mean a comments section?
  - nradov 3y ago
    Your question doesn't make any sense. If a newspaper creates an interactive computer service then they receive the same Section 230 protections as anyone else. The law doesn't define any line of editorial control. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Where is the line between choosing what people see and exerting editorial control over what to print The line is different online vs in print, because of Section 230, whose scope is pretty explicit... > If a newspaper puts up a dark corner of their website that gives people labyrinthine access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish, are they no longer liable for the content they post and promote on their main site? Are you under the impression that the main content of newspapers (either in print or on the web) is third-party submissions that the newspaper chooses to print or not but does not actively assign and pay people to write, and/or actively purchase for publication?
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      Online newspapers do mix editorial and community content in the articles and comments. The difference between them is pretty clear as is the moderation. Also, there are sites like Forbes that have editorial articles but also have blogs posted by users. These do get confused on Forbes.
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Isn't 230 to protect UGC? Newspaper publish content they create.
laratied 3y ago
Or imagine claiming that pay phone companies were liable in 1980 for facilitating mafia crime activity. It is so stupid that no one at the time even considered it.

User23 3y ago

Newspapers are publishers and are liable for what they print. That's the point of section 230, Twitter is not legally a publisher.

InitialLastName 3y ago
Where is the line between choosing what people see and exerting editorial control over what to print? If a newspaper puts up a dark corner of their website that gives people labyrinthine access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish, are they no longer liable for the content they post and promote on their main site?
- favorited 3y ago
  > access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish You mean a comments section?
- nradov 3y ago
  Your question doesn't make any sense. If a newspaper creates an interactive computer service then they receive the same Section 230 protections as anyone else. The law doesn't define any line of editorial control. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Where is the line between choosing what people see and exerting editorial control over what to print The line is different online vs in print, because of Section 230, whose scope is pretty explicit... > If a newspaper puts up a dark corner of their website that gives people labyrinthine access to all of the submissions that they decided not to publish, are they no longer liable for the content they post and promote on their main site? Are you under the impression that the main content of newspapers (either in print or on the web) is third-party submissions that the newspaper chooses to print or not but does not actively assign and pay people to write, and/or actively purchase for publication?
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Online newspapers do mix editorial and community content in the articles and comments. The difference between them is pretty clear as is the moderation. Also, there are sites like Forbes that have editorial articles but also have blogs posted by users. These do get confused on Forbes.
- djbusby 3y ago
  Isn't 230 to protect UGC? Newspaper publish content they create.

laratied 3y ago

Or imagine claiming that pay phone companies were liable in 1980 for facilitating mafia crime activity. It is so stupid that no one at the time even considered it.