Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by catiopatio on Saturday September 17, 2022 @10:58PM
(#32884009)
Of course they’re not common carriers; that’s the whole problem.
They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the CDA, but none of the responsibilities.
Refer to the “telecommunications” section of the Wikipedia page you’ve cited, where this specific topic is covered, along with additional references for further details.
Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o...
by vel0city on Sunday September 18, 2022 @02:06AM
(#32884861)
Section 230 of the CDA never uses the term "common carrier". In fact, "Interactive computer service" was the exact phrase of language that ISPs successfully lobbied themselves to be classified as to avoid common carrier regulations.
Being a "Interactive computer service" != being a "common carrier". Pointing to Section 230 as an example of "common carrier" statues is massively misunderstanding the "ISPs as common carriers" debate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
> A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.