Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by NovemberWhiskey on Thursday October 15, 2020 @06:55PM
(#24795273)
Right. The historical context for Section 230 is that some providers that were trying to offer a family-safe online service (e.g. Prodigy) by moderating the content available, and therefore became liable as publishers.
In fact, if you read Section 230 in its entirety, you can see that it is intended to encourage moderation of content based on what the provider considers to be objectionable.
Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by blhack on Thursday October 15, 2020 @06:45PM
(#24795168)
Section 230 is outlining a way in which an internet service can be exempted from liability. What part of this is causing you to read it another way?
Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by jakelazaroff on Thursday October 15, 2020 @09:11PM
(#24796346)
Section 230 shields platform operators from liability for user-generated content. It does not set conditions for immunity such as not moderating. In fact, it was arguably created expressly to prevent this publisher/distributor dichotomy. Look at the cases against Prodigy and Compuserve for examples of the ambiguity Section 230 was introduced to resolve.
Under current law, companies are free to - specifically encouraged to - moderate and delete content as much as they want, while they are also immunized from being treated as the publisher of that content and immunized from any liability for that moderation and deletion of content.