3 ms·
Reading the law, it sure seems to be aimed at protecting services like ISPs, web hosts, CDNs/caches, email hosts, et c, not organizations promoting and amplifyi
by vundercind 2y ago
Reading the law, it sure seems to be aimed at protecting services like ISPs, web hosts, CDNs/caches, email hosts, et c, not organizations promoting and amplifying specific content they’ve allowed users to post. It’s never seemed to me that applying 230 to, say, the Facebook feed or maybe even to Google ads is definitely required by or in the spirit of the law, but more like something we just accidentally ended up doing.
- whoitwas 2y agoI thought safe harbor was the relevant statute here (section 512 of DMCA)?
- vundercind 2y agoThat’s narrowly concerned with copyright infringement, no?
- whoitwas 2y agoYeah. It's been a while. This is interesting