https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Will they now be treated as publisher, as they should be? Rhetorical question. After all, selective censorship is just an editorial line under a different name...
The legal liabilities are different, and so is the business model evidently...
but if you have to edit out pedophilia or anything really, doesn't it all make you an editor?
Not if the government forces you. This also forces the government to investigate CP instead of, Twitter for example, deleting it and then it's under the rug so nothing is done.
Except pedophilia is illegal to begin with....
Nice try
Alright I'm not a lawyer so relax about the "try"
Continuing on that, can't they claim the content they remove is illegal because of laws against hatespeech?
(post is archived)