Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by edgyquant on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @01:08AM
(#33702599)
Content providers cannot be held liable for user generated content under section 230. Try again.
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by woodruffw on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @01:32AM
(#33702741)
Hm? Intellectual property is explicitly carved out of 230, and even if it wasn’t: it isn’t user generated. Content providers are regularly found liable for infringement on their platforms, especially when the plaintiff can demonstrate willful negligence (which in this case would include discontinuing a seemingly effective scanning system.)
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by toast0 on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @01:18AM
(#33702651)
§230(e)(2) says
> (2) No effect on intellectual property law
> Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
If section 230 from the CDA of 1996 provided immunity from copyright claims, there would be no reason to include procedural requirements for processing claims in the DMCA of 1998.
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by threeseed on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @02:17AM
(#33703009)
Twitter is a global company.
Many jurisdictions take an even harsher line when it comes to being complicit in intellectual property abuse. We saw this famously with The Pirate Bay, Napster etc.
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by fatneckbeardz on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @04:51AM
(#33703950)
youtube literally been sued over this exact issue multiple times.
You may not like it, but having a bot do that probably saves a lot of legal hassle.