3 ms·
deja vu. I forgot their names, but there were two social media platform in 2000s, one offered no moderation and other offered some. The one with some moderation
by prakhar897 3y ago
deja vu. I forgot their names, but there were two social media platform in 2000s, one offered no moderation and other offered some. The one with some moderation was found guilty of not being able to manage hate speech. Meanwhile the one with no moderation was found not guilty.
- aw1621107 3y agoI think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Those two lawsuits were the motivation for the passage of Section 230. I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- oblio 3y agoLOL, it's THAT Stratton Oakmont :-)) It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?
- aw1621107 3y ago> How did they ever win a trial? In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.
- dannyw 3y agoA cloakroom that inspects every coat for explosives and claims so could be sued for negligence, but a cloakroom that doesn’t is less likely.