3 ms·
> the internet grew tremendously, encompassing the kinds of activities that did not exist in 1996 I guess that's one way to say that you never experienced the
by falcolas 2y ago
> the internet grew tremendously, encompassing the kinds of activities that did not exist in 1996
I guess that's one way to say that you never experienced the early internet. In three words: rotten dot com. Makes all the N-chans look like teenagers smoking on the corner, and Facebook et.al. look like toddlers in paddded cribs.
This will frankly hurt any and all attempts to host any content online, and if anyone can survive it, it will be the biggest corporations alone. Section 230 also protected ISPs and hosting companies (linode, Hetzer, etc) after all.
Their targeting may not be intentional, but will that matter? Are they willing to be jailed in a foreign country because of their perceived inaction?
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoJail? This was a civil suit, no criminal penalties apply, just monetary.
- falcolas 2y agoThanks to "Contempt of Court" anybody can go to jail, even if they're not found liable for the presented case. But more on point, we're discussing modification of how laws are interpreted. If someone can be held civilly liable, why can't they be held criminally liable if the "recommended" content breaks criminal laws (CSAM, for example)? There's nothing that prevents this interpretation from being considered in a criminal case.
- hn_acker 2y agoSection 230 already doesn't apply to content that breaks federal criminal liability, so CSAM is already exempted. Certain third-party liability cases will still be protected by the First Amendment (no third-party liability without knowledge of CSAM, for example) but won't be dismissed early by Section 230.
- stackskipton 2y agoThis was purely about was "Is using algorithms made you a publisher?", this judge ruled yes and therefore, no Section 230. The Judge made no ruling on Section 230 protection for anyone who truly just hosts the content so ISPs/Hosting Companies should be fine.