Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?

Assuming that content was paid for by the company, either by contractors or employees, I think a court could see through that being called 'user content' pretty easily.

If it's just uncompensated randos...well then it wouldn't be a traditional publication anymore.

Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.

Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium.

[1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...

I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging.

That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency.

This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit.

I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.

> S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think

However, some companies do think that Section 230 shields them from all liability for their interactive computer services, and lower-level courts seem to agree with them[1].

The case here[1][2] has made its way to the Supreme Court[2], though.

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...

[2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...

They are actually protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects businesses that won't do business with political opponents?

So if all the banks decided to stop doing business with all Democrats, you'd argue that was protected by the First Amendment?

So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

>So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

If the first amendment didn't exist the government could force a bakery to bake Nazi cakes. They can still force you to bake cakes based upon certain protected classes. So I guess if political affiliation became a protected class then maybe the government could force a bakery to bake a Nazi cake? I dunno.

> So if all the banks decided to stop doing business with all Democrats, you'd argue that was protected by the First Amendment?

Correct, it is. It would be foolish business, but they could do it. At least, that's my understanding.

What would more likely happen is this:

> Business announces no-Democrat policy

> Policy goes viral

> Business cancels policy due to public pressure and other businesses cutting ties due to the bad PR

> Republicans yell about 'cancel culture'

---

> So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

The first amendment literally works the opposite of this. That's exactly the kind of thing a business can refuse (though in some cases there are narrow carve-outs for certain types of identity).

You're being downvoted because of the misinformation in your post. Facebook isn't a publisher when it comes to user-made posts, so calling them one is misinformation.

> This isn't about Section 230. We need new legislation to reign in the unchecked ability of Silicon Valley to curb speech they disagree with.

Unchecked? What happened to the free market that the GOP constantly talked about, the sacred thing that the government shouldn't interfere with?

Not to mention there's no actual evidence of this:

> systematically denying their political enemies a platform.

What's happened so far is conservatives breaking the rules much more heavily than progressives, and then getting very upset when the consequences kick in (though to be sure, I've seen leftists getting mad about this too).