The first question in their FAQ addresses suing them, to which they claim they are immune because of the Communications Decency Act, specifically, the part that

The first question in their FAQ addresses suing them, to which they claim they are immune because of the Communications Decency Act, specifically, the part that provides immunity to ISPs and forums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Sect... I wonder, however, if the law cannot distinguish between, say, Hacker News and Potential Predators. Hacker News as an entity is a free-form discussion site, with no particular agenda other than being a forum for discussion. Potential Predators is not a discussion site, and it has a clear agenda. Reasonable people will assume that HN itself does not endorse individual comments. But reasonable people may assume that Potential Predators endorses individual submissions that they post. I can easily draw a distinction between the two. But I'm not sure if the law does. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they do endorse individual submissions. I think that puts them closer to libel laws that apply to newspapers. It would be absurd for, say, the NY Times to try to use the CDA to defend itself from a libel suit by saying, hey, we just provide a forum for news articles; we're not responsible for what our reporters put up here. That may be a crucial distinction, in fact: at the NY Times, the person who writes the article does not post it. It goes to an editor, and then presumably to someone on the technical side. I wonder if Potential Predators curates the submissions, and if they do, if that effects their responsibility in any way. If grellas is around, I would love to hear his take.