Read on Twitter
This is gibberish. I know you genuinely believe it, and I& #39;m sorry for that. I know you& #39;ve been told it by people you trusted. But it& #39;s not the law. You& #39;ve been misled.
CDA § 230 has nothing to do with whether Twitter conducts itself as a platform versus a publisher. https://twitter.com/OCConservo/status/1265824165577150464">https://twitter.com/OCConserv...
CDA § 230 has nothing to do with whether Twitter conducts itself as a platform versus a publisher. https://twitter.com/OCConservo/status/1265824165577150464">https://twitter.com/OCConserv...
I expect we& #39;ll be talking a lot about this in the next few days, so here& #39;s a head start: there is no platform/publisher distinction.
All CDA § 230 does is protect a website from liability for user content & user moderation. It doesn& #39;t matter if the website is also a publisher.
All CDA § 230 does is protect a website from liability for user content & user moderation. It doesn& #39;t matter if the website is also a publisher.
Put another way, if I have a blog, and I have open comments, CDA § 230 means, generally, that I can& #39;t be held liable for my commenters& #39; posts.
It doesn& #39;t mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights.
It doesn& #39;t mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights.
That& #39;s all CDA § 230 stands for: a website or web service cannot be held liable for the content or moderation of its users.
There is no "non-partisan platform" requirement in the law. And all you had to do to find that out is read the very short operative section of the law:
There is no "non-partisan platform" requirement in the law. And all you had to do to find that out is read the very short operative section of the law:
You are correct, but you don& #39;t realize that gets you nowhere. Under CDA § 230 I am responsible for my own content and moderation, but not the content/moderation of other users.
That& #39;s groovy. It doesn& #39;t get you to: "therefore you cannot edit my comments." https://twitter.com/OCConservo/status/1265827628453203968">https://twitter.com/OCConserv...
That& #39;s groovy. It doesn& #39;t get you to: "therefore you cannot edit my comments." https://twitter.com/OCConservo/status/1265827628453203968">https://twitter.com/OCConserv...
This example illustrates the imaginary trade-off. There is nothing in CDA § 230 that conditions liability protection on neutrality or nonpartisan-ness or an agreement not to kick out the Pepes. There never was.
CDA § 230 was designed to *encourage* content-policing.
CDA § 230 was designed to *encourage* content-policing.
And to find that obscure nugget out, all we had to do was scroll to the very next section of this very accessible and easily-understood law:
It& #39;s clear after a couple rounds that we& #39;re dealing with two different varieties here.
The first don& #39;t realize that publishers are protected under § 230 from liability from the content of users.
The second thinks abolishing § 230 would mean a freer internet. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1265833312188325888">https://twitter.com/gabrielma...
The first don& #39;t realize that publishers are protected under § 230 from liability from the content of users.
The second thinks abolishing § 230 would mean a freer internet. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1265833312188325888">https://twitter.com/gabrielma...
Both of these species are wrong, but they& #39;re wrong in different ways. One simply can& #39;t read an easily-understood law. The other has a fundamental misunderstanding about human nature.
This is precisely the argument that Congress rejected when it created § 230.
Congress didn& #39;t want comment moderation to cause websites to become liable for the comments they didn& #39;t delete. Congress feared imposing such liability would stifle speech on the internet. https://twitter.com/Klonick/status/1265850207297732608">https://twitter.com/Klonick/s...
Congress didn& #39;t want comment moderation to cause websites to become liable for the comments they didn& #39;t delete. Congress feared imposing such liability would stifle speech on the internet. https://twitter.com/Klonick/status/1265850207297732608">https://twitter.com/Klonick/s...
§ 230 came about because a congressman read a news report about a judicial decision holding ISP Prodigy liable for the comments of users that it didn& #39;t delete on the theory that Prodigy, which billed itself as the family-friendly alternative to AOL, had moderated other comments.
The congressman thought it was counter-intuitive that Prodigy, which was trying to keep it clean and safe on the internet, be held liable for comments while AOL, which was a trash bin, was not.
The whole point of § 230 was to *encourage* ISPs to moderate the content of users.
The whole point of § 230 was to *encourage* ISPs to moderate the content of users.
Most importantly, § 230 specifically includes a provision providing that no website or ISP be held liable for moderating content.
If this is an accurate preview of Trump& #39;s EO (if!), that provision of the EO is dead in the water as inconsistent with § 230.
If this is an accurate preview of Trump& #39;s EO (if!), that provision of the EO is dead in the water as inconsistent with § 230.
Today the most powerful man in the world will claim his speech is being suppressed because someone disagrees with him and says so on their own website. https://twitter.com/GraveRoller/status/1265861080699600897">https://twitter.com/GraveRoll...
Setting aside for a minute that the EO& #39;s interpretation of § 230 conflicts with the text of § 230,, the interpretation does not bind any court, where § 230 is typically raised as a defense to civil suit.
Just what is it Trump followers think they& #39;re getting here?
Just what is it Trump followers think they& #39;re getting here?
And if the answer to that is, "well, the AGs could sue for false advertising," I& #39;m sorry to break it to you, but they could do that *now*. There& #39;s a reason none of those suits have gone anywhere.
Oh, btw, the ALT-code for the section symbol (§) is ALT-0167.
(You might need this one today.)
(You might need this one today.)
