3 ms·

The question that section 230, and the Communications Indecency Act in general, is the same one that plagued the court cases leading up to it, is to what degree

The question that section 230, and the Communications Indecency Act in general, is the same one that plagued the court cases leading up to it, is to what degree the voluntary removal of some content implies an endorsement of other content. Some material you can be required to remove by law, or required to suspend pending review for various MDCA safe harbor provisions. But when you remove content in excess of that, where does the liability end? If you have a cat forum and you remove dog posts, are you also required to remove defamatory posts in general? If you have a new forum and you remove misinformation, does that removal constitute an actionable defamation against the poster? I generally dislike section 230, as I feel like blanket immunity is too strong -- I'd prefer that judges and juries make this decision on a case-by-case basis. But the cost of litigating these cases could be prohibitive, especially for small or growing companies. It seems like this would lead to an equilibrium where there was no content moderation at all, or one where you could only act on user reports. Maybe this wouldn't even be so bad.

basch 2y ago
That is the entire point of 230. You can remove whatever you want for whatever reason, and what you leave up doesn't make you the speaker or endorser of that content. Taken to the extreme it obviously leaves a window for a crazy abuse where you let people upload individual letters, then you remove letters of your choice to create new sentences and claim the contributors of the letters are the speakers, not the editor. However, as far as I know, nobody is yet quite accused of that level of moderation to editorialize. Subreddits however ARE similar to that idea. Communities with strict points of view are allowed to purge anything not aligned with their community values. Taking away their protection basically eliminates the community from being able to exist.
Manuel_D 2y ago
> If you have a new forum and you remove misinformation, does that removal constitute an actionable defamation against the poster? Twitter was sued for this, because they attached a note to a user's post. But note that this was not a user-generated community note. It was authored directly by Twitter. Without Section 230, any moderation - even if it was limited to just removing abjectly offensive content - resulted in the internet service taking liability for all user generated content. I think even acting on user reports would still result in liability. The two court cases that stablished this are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
- andrewla 2y ago
  > Without Section 230, any moderation - even if it was limited to just removing abjectly offensive content - resulted in the internet service taking liability for all user generated content Cubby ruled in the opposite direction -- that a service should not be held liable for user-posted content. Stratton did rule that the Prodigy was liable for content posted, but it was specifically due to their heavy-handed approach to content moderation. The court said, for example: > It is argued that ... the power to censor, triggered the duty to censor. That is a leap which the Court is not prepared to join in. And > For the record, the fear that this Court's finding of publishers status for PRODIGY will compel all computer networks to abdicate control of their bulletin boards, incorrectly presumes that the market will refuse to compensate a network for its increased control and the resulting increased exposure It is a tough needle to thread, but it leaves the door open to refining the factors the specific conditions under which a services provider is liable for posted content -- it is neither a shield of immunity nor an absolute assumed liability. Prodigy specifically advertised its boards to be reliable sources as a way of getting adoption, and put in place policies and procedures to try to achieve that, and, in doing so, put itself in the position of effectively being the publisher of the underlying content. I personally don't agree with the decision based on the facts of the case, but to me it is not black and white and I would have preferred to stick to the judicial regime until it because clearer what the parameters of moderation can be without incurring liability.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > Cubby ruled in the opposite direction -- that a service should not be held liable for user-posted content. Because Cubby did zero moderation. > Stratton did rule that the Prodigy was liable for content posted, but it was specifically due to their heavy-handed approach to content moderation. The court said, for example: What gives you the impression that this was because the moderation was "heavy handed"? The description in the Wikipedia page reads: > The Stratton court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on its bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting content guidelines for users; 2) by enforcing those guidelines with "Board Leaders"; and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language. Posting civility rules and filtering profanity seems like pretty straightforward content moderation. This isn't "heavy handed moderation" this is extremely basic moderation. These cases directly motivated Section 230: > Some federal legislators noticed the contradiction in the two rulings,[4] while Internet enthusiasts found that expecting website operators to accept liability for the speech of third-party users was both untenable and likely to stifle the development of the Internet.[5] Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) co-authored legislation that would resolve the contradictory precedents on liability while enabling websites and platforms to host speech and exercise editorial control to moderate objectionable content without incurring unlimited liability by doing so.

basch 2y ago

That is the entire point of 230. You can remove whatever you want for whatever reason, and what you leave up doesn't make you the speaker or endorser of that content. Taken to the extreme it obviously leaves a window for a crazy abuse where you let people upload individual letters, then you remove letters of your choice to create new sentences and claim the contributors of the letters are the speakers, not the editor. However, as far as I know, nobody is yet quite accused of that level of moderation to editorialize. Subreddits however ARE similar to that idea. Communities with strict points of view are allowed to purge anything not aligned with their community values. Taking away their protection basically eliminates the community from being able to exist.

Manuel_D 2y ago

> If you have a new forum and you remove misinformation, does that removal constitute an actionable defamation against the poster? Twitter was sued for this, because they attached a note to a user's post. But note that this was not a user-generated community note. It was authored directly by Twitter. Without Section 230, any moderation - even if it was limited to just removing abjectly offensive content - resulted in the internet service taking liability for all user generated content. I think even acting on user reports would still result in liability. The two court cases that stablished this are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.

andrewla 2y ago
> Without Section 230, any moderation - even if it was limited to just removing abjectly offensive content - resulted in the internet service taking liability for all user generated content Cubby ruled in the opposite direction -- that a service should not be held liable for user-posted content. Stratton did rule that the Prodigy was liable for content posted, but it was specifically due to their heavy-handed approach to content moderation. The court said, for example: > It is argued that ... the power to censor, triggered the duty to censor. That is a leap which the Court is not prepared to join in. And > For the record, the fear that this Court's finding of publishers status for PRODIGY will compel all computer networks to abdicate control of their bulletin boards, incorrectly presumes that the market will refuse to compensate a network for its increased control and the resulting increased exposure It is a tough needle to thread, but it leaves the door open to refining the factors the specific conditions under which a services provider is liable for posted content -- it is neither a shield of immunity nor an absolute assumed liability. Prodigy specifically advertised its boards to be reliable sources as a way of getting adoption, and put in place policies and procedures to try to achieve that, and, in doing so, put itself in the position of effectively being the publisher of the underlying content. I personally don't agree with the decision based on the facts of the case, but to me it is not black and white and I would have preferred to stick to the judicial regime until it because clearer what the parameters of moderation can be without incurring liability.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > Cubby ruled in the opposite direction -- that a service should not be held liable for user-posted content. Because Cubby did zero moderation. > Stratton did rule that the Prodigy was liable for content posted, but it was specifically due to their heavy-handed approach to content moderation. The court said, for example: What gives you the impression that this was because the moderation was "heavy handed"? The description in the Wikipedia page reads: > The Stratton court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on its bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting content guidelines for users; 2) by enforcing those guidelines with "Board Leaders"; and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language. Posting civility rules and filtering profanity seems like pretty straightforward content moderation. This isn't "heavy handed moderation" this is extremely basic moderation. These cases directly motivated Section 230: > Some federal legislators noticed the contradiction in the two rulings,[4] while Internet enthusiasts found that expecting website operators to accept liability for the speech of third-party users was both untenable and likely to stifle the development of the Internet.[5] Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) co-authored legislation that would resolve the contradictory precedents on liability while enabling websites and platforms to host speech and exercise editorial control to moderate objectionable content without incurring unlimited liability by doing so.