4 ms·
> Meta also argued it was immune to any cases brought against them under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is often used to obtain immu
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> Meta also argued it was immune to any cases brought against them under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is often used to obtain immunity from claims involving the publishing or deletion of material on its platforms.
A crack in Section 230. Nice!
- gumby 3y agoA crack in Section 230 would be disastrous. But this doesn't look like a crack at all, and IG never tried to claim that they had deliberately chosen to delete the account. That might even have pushed it under Section 230!
- phire 3y agoIt was a pretty shitty defence. Facebook were trying to argue that Section 230 somehow gave them immunity from their own terms and conditions.
- tracker1 3y agoLet alone a contract with payments involved. Too bad they weren't hit with tortious interference.
- gumby 3y agoThat’s a stretch, but wow, that would be interesting! I assume by “they” you mean FB/IG. They aren’t the ones who filed suit, so it’s a hard case to make. But I do feel there’s an implicit contract.
- fyrn_ 3y agoDid you read the article? Literally their first defense was that the user had deleted the account themselves