3 ms·

Section 230 doesn't indemnify anything. It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator. Similar provisions are in place in most of

Section 230 doesn't indemnify anything. It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator. Similar provisions are in place in most of the civilized world.

wakawaka28 2y ago
Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. So social media as we know it is kind of a new development in technology that needs to be addressed properly.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  > Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control. Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Social media using tens of thousands of moderators and AI to enforce extralegal policies about content sure sounds like editorial control to me. They an easily be viewed as employing content producers. Discriminating against content they don't like and promoting content that they do like (especially against user and producer preferences) is an act of editorializing. It doesn't matter to me how they justify that to themselves. Social media should be a utility, not a social engineering psyop working for government and industry "elites"...
Incipient 2y ago
Personally I haven't reached a conclusion either way. The counter to this point, is that torrent providers are also just intermediaries, not the originators. To some extent, companies/people should be accountable for the actions they facilitate as an intermediary. I'm just not sure how accountable.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  There are exclusions to this law, that obligates establishment of reasonable measures and adherence to take down rules. (That's why we have DMCA, that actually offers indemnity for copyright violations)

Section 230 doesn't indemnify anything. It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator. Similar provisions are in place in most of the civilized world.

wakawaka28 2y ago

Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. So social media as we know it is kind of a new development in technology that needs to be addressed properly.

JAlexoid 2y ago
> Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control. Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Social media using tens of thousands of moderators and AI to enforce extralegal policies about content sure sounds like editorial control to me. They an easily be viewed as employing content producers. Discriminating against content they don't like and promoting content that they do like (especially against user and producer preferences) is an act of editorializing. It doesn't matter to me how they justify that to themselves. Social media should be a utility, not a social engineering psyop working for government and industry "elites"...

Incipient 2y ago

Personally I haven't reached a conclusion either way. The counter to this point, is that torrent providers are also just intermediaries, not the originators. To some extent, companies/people should be accountable for the actions they facilitate as an intermediary. I'm just not sure how accountable.

JAlexoid 2y ago
There are exclusions to this law, that obligates establishment of reasonable measures and adherence to take down rules. (That's why we have DMCA, that actually offers indemnity for copyright violations)