U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by hedora on Sunday September 18, 2022 @12:42PM (#32888992)

One of the other commenters (and also Texas...) claim they are common carriers.

[ Parent | on HN ]