3 ms·

you are missing the larger picture. 230 is what prevents websites from having the legal obligation to identity users. with 230, any crime in user content, the

you are missing the larger picture. 230 is what prevents websites from having the legal obligation to identity users. with 230, any crime in user content, they can just tell the govt that they will take content down and gov can go and hunt the criminals. without 230, they have to provide an alibi to what now is their crime. so no operator will ever allow you to post a word without providing a photo id and credit card payment as proof. and this what they want so the digital id, which will be totally optional, Will end up being required everywhere because it would be the easier way to implemented the "way out".

constantcrying 2y ago
>with 230, any crime in user content, they can just tell the govt that they will take content down and gov can go and hunt the criminals. This is completely untrue. Section 230 does not protect from criminal liability. It protects from civil liability. This why hosting criminal material, such as CSAM, is not protected.
- whythre 2y ago
  The distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor- either way this will have a massive chilling effect and force any website to carefully vet hosted content for fear of being sued. The threshold for criminal prosecution is very high. The threshold for a civil suit is comparably low.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >The distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor It is an immense difference though. Civil and criminal law differ in almost every single conceivable way. You literally go on to name one very important difference. The threshold for civil litigation is someone deciding to file a pro se suit against you by giving something vaguely resembling a legal document to a court. The chilling effect of that is much more dramatic than criminal liability.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  Does that mean the owners of a site could be prosecuted if one of their users ever uploads criminal content, regardless of how quickly the site owner identifies and removes the content?

constantcrying 2y ago

>with 230, any crime in user content, they can just tell the govt that they will take content down and gov can go and hunt the criminals. This is completely untrue. Section 230 does not protect from criminal liability. It protects from civil liability. This why hosting criminal material, such as CSAM, is not protected.

whythre 2y ago
The distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor- either way this will have a massive chilling effect and force any website to carefully vet hosted content for fear of being sued. The threshold for criminal prosecution is very high. The threshold for a civil suit is comparably low.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >The distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor It is an immense difference though. Civil and criminal law differ in almost every single conceivable way. You literally go on to name one very important difference. The threshold for civil litigation is someone deciding to file a pro se suit against you by giving something vaguely resembling a legal document to a court. The chilling effect of that is much more dramatic than criminal liability.
DangitBobby 2y ago
Does that mean the owners of a site could be prosecuted if one of their users ever uploads criminal content, regardless of how quickly the site owner identifies and removes the content?