5 ms·

If they don’t censor, they’re not liable. If they censor, they are liable.

• 8note 4y ago
  Sounds like a weird requirement. If they host the content, they should be sued, minus 230 protections
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    I've read that if you moderate you are acting as an editor even if the content is user generated and that means you are a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish. Section 230 basically erased the distinction between publisher and distributor.
• belltaco 4y ago
  No, repealing Section 230 means every site with user generated content is publishing the information, just like a newspaper or TV channel, which get successfully sued all the time. In fact, Section 230 was passed explicitly because of successful lawsuits against forums and websites hosting user generated content. https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved/ https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-23...
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. > The court held that although CompuServe did host defamatory content on its forums, CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher, of the content. As a distributor, CompuServe could only be held liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content.[2] As CompuServe had made no effort to review the large volume of content on its forums, it could not be held liable for the defamatory content.