3 ms·
Isn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if th
by acdha 6mo ago
Isn’t that their defense against responsibility for their customers’ content? Having some broad filtering for legal requirements or scams is one thing but if they’re doing this it seems like support for cases alleging that they have editorial control and therefore responsibility.
- abustamam 6mo agoThat's true. I haven't been keeping up with FB lawsuits but from what I gather of HN sentiment, FB is not open and never has been. Any FB exec claiming to be open is probably just doing exactly what you said, and they'll probably find a way to spin it to include this exclusion as part of their "openness."
- toast0 6mo agoLegally, they don't need to choose. Section 230 limits provider liability for moderating user content and also limits provider liability for not moderating user content. I think the intent of Section 230 was to apply liability to the users making the content, not the service provider transmitting it; however, IIRC, cutrent jurisprudence makes it very hard to compell service providers to identify users in civil cases, so civil liability is hard to pursue, unless the user identifies themself in their content. It's not a question of if they're a common carrier or nor; they don't need to be, and typically, they don't try to be.