4 ms·

I am not a lawyer but my understanding of section 230 was that platforms are not responsible for the content their users post (with limitations like “you can’t

I am not a lawyer but my understanding of section 230 was that platforms are not responsible for the content their users post (with limitations like “you can’t just host CSAM”). But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. Like there’s a difference between someone downloading a photo off the internet and then using tools like photoshop to make lewd content before reuploading it, as compared to the platform just offering a button to do all of that without friction.

skywhopper 10mo ago
1) These images are being posted by @Grok, which is an official X account, not a user account. 2) X still has an ethical and probably legal obligation to remove these images from their platform, even if they are somehow found not to be responsible for generating them, even though they generated them.
- darth_avocado 10mo ago
  For #2, you are correct. Section 230 isn’t blatant immunity, you need to still follow all the other relevant laws including FOSTA-SESTA, DMCA etc.
biophysboy 10mo ago
> But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. That's interesting - do you have a link for this? I'd be curious to know more of the section's details.
- darth_avocado 10mo ago
  Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue” If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.
AlecSchueler 10mo ago
Who cares about the law in this case though? Don't we have other barometers for moral decisions?

skywhopper 10mo ago

1) These images are being posted by @Grok, which is an official X account, not a user account. 2) X still has an ethical and probably legal obligation to remove these images from their platform, even if they are somehow found not to be responsible for generating them, even though they generated them.

darth_avocado 10mo ago
For #2, you are correct. Section 230 isn’t blatant immunity, you need to still follow all the other relevant laws including FOSTA-SESTA, DMCA etc.

biophysboy 10mo ago

> But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. That's interesting - do you have a link for this? I'd be curious to know more of the section's details.

darth_avocado 10mo ago
Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue” If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.

AlecSchueler 10mo ago

Who cares about the law in this case though? Don't we have other barometers for moral decisions?