2 ms·

Section 230 was explicitly about allowing service providers to act in an editorial capacity, allowing them to remove content that they deemed offensive. The alt

Section 230 was explicitly about allowing service providers to act in an editorial capacity, allowing them to remove content that they deemed offensive. The alternative was what happened in two court cases: moderate things and be liable for anything that slips through or moderate nothing and don't be liable for anything but the service fills with spam and other unwanted content and becomes unusable/not family friendly. It was never about a platform being treated as a mere carrier, it was the exact opposite: allowing them to moderate without huge liability fears.

lliamander 3y ago
> Section 230 was explicitly about allowing service providers to act in an editorial capacity Absolutely. Sites with user-generated content would be practically unusable without such protections. However, the first two sub-sections list why the protections are being granted in the first place. When a social media platform's moderation actions are sufficiently opposed to those purposes, then I would argue they are no longer "good faith" moderation decisions per section 230 and thus fall outside of its protection.