While an unelected tech billionaire is effectively orchestrating a coup of the US government, violating federal law with apparent impunity, and disclaiming all responsibility for the chaos he’…
basically forcing facepals and the xitter to pay for moderation.
there’s three dems and three republQans on it, and it’s not the worst idea in the world, but it’s a vain attempt to have something, anything be bipartisan which - we all know how that goes.
If hell freezes over again it’ll be gutted by amendments and ultimately need to be cleaned up by whatever billionaire pays to run the US next.
Blanket removing Section 230 does literally the opposite. Without it platforms are only liable for user generated content if they moderate it. before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content. If they didn’t moderate they would be considered a content distributor, like a bookstore, which isn’t liable for the content of the material they distribute. So repealing it means any website with user generated content would effectively be required to operate like 4chan or Usenet.
before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content.
So you’re saying facebook and twitter who both have had moderation for many years are liable for the content published under that organization?
I don’t think so. But I’m prepared to be proved wrong if you got it.
No, because section 230 has been in effect since long before those companies existed. The law removes liability from companies who decide to moderate user content. If it were repealed they’d have to stop moderation or face liability. The Background and Passage Section on Wikipedia outlines the court cases that led to the law’s creation.
basically forcing facepals and the xitter to pay for moderation.
there’s three dems and three republQans on it, and it’s not the worst idea in the world, but it’s a vain attempt to have something, anything be bipartisan which - we all know how that goes.
If hell freezes over again it’ll be gutted by amendments and ultimately need to be cleaned up by whatever billionaire pays to run the US next.
Blanket removing Section 230 does literally the opposite. Without it platforms are only liable for user generated content if they moderate it. before if a platform moderated content published by users, it would be considered a content publisher, like a newspaper or magazine, and would be liable for user generated content. If they didn’t moderate they would be considered a content distributor, like a bookstore, which isn’t liable for the content of the material they distribute. So repealing it means any website with user generated content would effectively be required to operate like 4chan or Usenet.
So you’re saying facebook and twitter who both have had moderation for many years are liable for the content published under that organization?
I don’t think so. But I’m prepared to be proved wrong if you got it.
No, because section 230 has been in effect since long before those companies existed. The law removes liability from companies who decide to moderate user content. If it were repealed they’d have to stop moderation or face liability. The Background and Passage Section on Wikipedia outlines the court cases that led to the law’s creation.