3 ms·

Section 230, if it's even remotely applicable to companies doing their own advertising on their own platforms, requires a "Good faith effort" to moderate that p

• toast0 2y ago
  230 (c)(2) says [1]: > (2) Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or > (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). Good faith is only required to limit civil liability in case of taking actions to restrict access. There's no good faith requirement for 230 (c) (1) which is where platforms get immunity for content from users. I don't believe the platforms are being accused of advertising their own drugs for sale; they're passing through drug advertisements from users (advertisers). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230