3 ms·

> 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,

• 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.
    • andrewla 2y ago
      Wikipedia's characterization is too broad. You can read the decision here [1] and decide for yourself. [1] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/1995-05-24-Prodigy%20Opinion.txt https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/1995-05-24-...
      • Manuel_D 2y ago
        What are you reading in that decision that suggests Prodigy was doing moderation beyond what we'd expect a typical internet forum to do? This is the relevant section of your link: > Plaintiffs further rely upon the following additional evidence in support of their claim that PRODIGY is a publisher: > (A)promulgation of "content guidelines" (the "Guidelines" found at Plaintiffs' Exhibit F) in which, inter alia, users are requested to refrain from posting notes that are "insulting" and are advised that "notes that harass other members or are deemed to be in bad taste or grossly repugnant to community standards, or are deemed harmful to maintaining a harmonious online community, will be removed when brought to PRODIGY's attention"; the Guidelines all expressly state that although "Prodigy is committed to open debate and discussion on the bulletin boards, > (B) use of a software screening program which automatically prescreens all bulletin board postings for offensive language; > (C) the use of Board Leaders such as Epstien whose duties include enforcement of the Guidelines, according to Jennifer Ambrozek, the Manager of Prodigy's bulletin boards and the person at PRODIGY responsible for supervising the Board Leaders (see Plaintiffs' Exhibit R, Ambrozek deposition transcript, at p. 191); and > (D) testimony by Epstien as to a tool for Board \Leaders known as an "emergency delete function" pursuant to which a Board Leader could remove a note and send a previously prepared message of explanation "ranging from solicitation, bad advice, insulting, wrong topic, off topic, bad taste, etcetera." (Epstien deposition Transcript, p. 52). So they published content guidelines prohibiting harssment, they filtered out offensive languages (presumably slurs, maybe profanity), and the moderation team deleted offending content. This is... bog standard internet forum moderation.