3 ms·

Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have

by Natsu 3y ago

Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. So I can see that it's misleading about what the ruling says, but not about the net effect of the ruling. But it actually links to the actual ruling here, so it still comes out as a C+ article over all, merely because of the terrible state of legal reporting.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Eh, it confuses what's actually stated in the ruling with the direct results of the ruling, which would be a trial on the merits of this, in which they'll have to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that they're not a link in the chain of whatever radicalized this guy. No, they won't necessarily. As the ruling makes clear, their Section 230 immunity claim is still live, but there are disputed questions of fact nexessary to resolve it. They only need to refute whatever proof is presented for causation if the plaintiff shows sufficient eveidence that they are a product in a manner not protected by Section 230 and they fail to refute that.