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.
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.