Jurisprudence prior to section 230 is that unmoderated discussion does not make the service provider liable for what is said. The act of active moderation is the thing that makes one liable for what is said.
In this way, cda 230 solely enables censorship by making service providers immune to prosecution if they implement content moderation.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history
In this way, cda 230 solely enables censorship by making service providers immune to prosecution if they implement content moderation.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
Because things start to get hairy when you say "on the internet", let's consider a piece of corkboard. Anyone can pin something to the corkboard, so would the person who owns the corkboard be personally responsible for anything that gets pinned to it?
It really bothered me the way the article used the word to imply that all shared software was a problem. Hell, fbxl.net still has a lot of the games I made back in the day, and they were never meant to be commercially available at all.