3 ms·

> The intention of section 230 is to isolate delivery mechanisms, for example ISPs and cell tower Not quite true. The inciting cases was about ISPs hosting for

> The intention of section 230 is to isolate delivery mechanisms, for example ISPs and cell tower Not quite true. The inciting cases was about ISPs hosting forums, and whether the forum host can be held liable for content it's users post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... The text of Section 230 is so simple. It deliberately targets broader "interactive computer services". > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider_

austin-cheney 3y ago
In both of those cases the forum operator and ISP were one and the same. The cause for concern then is that the ISP regulated user submitted content and thus was found liable for content published because the inference is that the ISP implicitly blessed such content by not removing it in the course of their moderation. This is not a risk to ISPs today or content transmission generally. The web, as it exists today in common practice, is no different than an offline magazine publishing user submitted content because editorial discretion is applied and the magazine is well isolated from the transmission mechanism, such as postal delivery.