4 ms·
Why on earth should companies be completely immune for things they ask their users to post? Why should they then be allowed to promote such content and yet not
by eppp 3y ago
Why on earth should companies be completely immune for things they ask their users to post? Why should they then be allowed to promote such content and yet not be found to be an editor?
- axus 3y agoBecause it promotes free speech and doesn't hurt anyone.
- eppp 3y agoThe speech isn't free. It is moderated and editorial decisions are being made. It is just pure upside for the owners of sites that want user generated content because they can afford excellent lobbyists. If you argued that you can post whatever you want and everything will be displayed by time order then sure. But when these places choose particular user generated content to promote then they are no longer operating as a free speech promoter. They are acting as editors.
- zone411 3y agoWithout this ability, forums would quickly be overrun with spam, propaganda, and extreme trolling. They would all shut down or have no normal users. This has been tried before and it's unworkable.
- eppp 3y agoLet them delete whatever they want then. Just no promotion of user content, it can only be displayed by order of time posted or user votes.
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoThis is a different thing that has nothing to do with Section 230. Maybe it's a good thing, but it's completely separate.
- zone411 3y agoOh the irony of writing this on a forum that would likely be shut down without Section 230...
- eppp 3y agoI didn't post on this forum for my first 30 years and it seemed fine too.
- Scion9066 3y agoBecause the alternatives were decided in: Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. which held that a service that lets everything be unmoderated was not liable. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. which held that a service that did moderate was liable for everything that may have slipped through. The first way of hosting a service leads to sites that have no filtering and are filled with spam and other awful but lawful content with no recourse for users who just want to use the service. The second way of hosting a service leads to services not allowing you to post anything even remotely possibly offensive or libelous, stifling any real discussion. Neither of those are good, so lawmakers came up with Section 230 to protect services and keep the liability on the one who posted the content, while still allowing the service to moderate things to make it not a cesspool.
- eppp 3y agoNeither of those are good for certain people. They might be very good indeed for society as a whole.