3 ms·
Right. Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
by averysmallbird 3y ago
Right. Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
- stale2002 3y agoThey are protected though is the point. So just like image editing software is not liable for what the users do, so to should even more protections apply to AI. Both should be completely immune and should have protections, and instead of removing protections, protections should be added to make absolutely sure that it is protected before any immunity is removed.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime. Online collaborative word processing and image editing software are protected by Section 230, and that is why they are not forced to actively monitor their user's content for torts even if they moderate shared content otherwise. (Non-collaborative image editing or word processing doesn't incur publisher liability even without Section 230, so Section 230 is irrelevant.) (Section 230 explicitly doesn't affect criminal liability, but it also isn't needed there, since doing some moderation doesn't create a state under criminal law, without Section 230, that would substitute for actual knowledge, the way it does in tort law.)