News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19... by lgleason on Monday May 18, 2020 @09:54AM (#23222319)
only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.
Re:Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19... by tzs on Monday May 18, 2020 @10:34AM (#23222781)
That's a common myth, and is completely wrong. In fact, it is almost 180 degrees wrong.

Before section 230, there had been a couple of court cases. One held that a particular provider was not liable for anything posted on it, because it did not do any filtering or blocking at all. Another held that a different provider was liable for what users posted, because it did do some filtering and blocking.

Congress felt these outcomes were wrong, and section 230 was specifically meant to make providers not liable for user provided content, regardless of whether or not they did any filtering or blocking.

Re:Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19... by SkyBelow on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @09:43AM (#23234782)
And yet sites that aggregate illegal content are taken down by the government all the time, despite hosting none of it themselves. If you filter the wrong way, the government will hold you liable.
Re:Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19... by jimmySixDOF on Monday May 18, 2020 @11:25AM (#23223522)
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

-Section 230

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Interne...

Re:Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19... by mmebane on Monday May 18, 2020 @10:10AM (#23222520)
This podcast goes into a lot of detail on what the CDA says: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/de...