Section 230 is good for companies that do not interfere with the content uploaded by users. When a company steps in to control what users can say or upload on their website then they are publishers just like the people who make newspapers and magazines. Publishers do not have a right to section 230 protections, and companies who censor (like youtube, twitter, reddit, and facebook) should be able to be sued just like newspapers and magazines can be sued.
Section 230 is good for companies that do not interfere with the content uploaded by users. When a company steps in to control what users can say or upload on their website then they are publishers just like the people who make newspapers and magazines. Publishers do not have a right to section 230 protections, and companies who censor (like youtube, twitter, reddit, and facebook) should be able to be sued just like newspapers and magazines can be sued.
The misconception that platforms can somehow lose Section 230 protections for moderating users’ posts has gotten a lot of airtime. This is false. Section 230 allows sites to moderate content how they see fit.
This is the biggest misconception that people have about Section 230. I constantly hear people chant that 230 protections are only offered to platforms and not publishers. That is false. The protections extend to both.
>The misconception that platforms can somehow lose Section 230 protections for moderating users’ posts has gotten a lot of airtime. This is false. Section 230 allows sites to moderate content how they see fit.
This is the biggest misconception that people have about Section 230. I constantly hear people chant that 230 protections are only offered to platforms and not publishers. That is false. The protections extend to both.
You are wrong. Please explain what you think a publisher is, I think that's probably where the problem lies.
You are wrong. Please explain what you think a publisher is, I think that's probably where the problem lies.
(post is archived)