Section 230 is Good, Actually

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by monsieurgaufre on Saturday December 05, 2020 @07:27AM (#25314047)

You're a publisher as soon as you put an infrastructure for users to put stuff on the net. Curating or not doesn't matter.

Disclosure: personal opinion, ianal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by Nextgrid on Saturday December 05, 2020 @07:30AM (#25314063)

In this case would you consider the telephone company a publisher too?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by monsieurgaufre on Saturday December 05, 2020 @07:43AM (#25314119)

No. I can't publish stuff on their website. They "sell" me the use of the "pipes", not what i do with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by smichel17 on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:49AM (#25314545)

What about Signal / Whatsapp? What about Matrix / Discord / Slack? Looking for the line you'd like to draw.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by xxpor on Saturday December 05, 2020 @09:20AM (#25314719)

Are they physically providing the internet connection? No? Then they're not common carriers and they should have 230 protections.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by tertius on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:52AM (#25314563)

In one sense yes, but not the one that matters here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by monsieurgaufre on Saturday December 05, 2020 @10:02AM (#25315020)

As i said, ianal and it's my own personal opinion. Others here have better expressed my views on the subject. Disruption is not always a good thing. Especially when it has large societal impacts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Section 230 is Good, Actually by tertius on Saturday December 05, 2020 @10:18AM (#25315138)

If you opinion is about one of the technical meanings of the word publish outside of the reading of the law then your opinion the law.

So yes you're right, but it's not relevant to section 230 at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]