undefined | Better HN

0 pointsLegitShady6y ago0 comments

The first one is fair - Vox got it wrong. That vox got it wrong should surprise no one, vox is lowest common denominator agenda driven garbage. \

The second one is asking "should they" - its asking a question not positing a fact.

Should they get immunity for what posted if its clear they have the capacity to censor at will? Why should they and not anyone else on the internet?

CDA makes a distinction between publisher and platform and the talk about this whole issue is that many people are saying that these companies can clearly police their content, and should be liable for it and not specially protected.

0 comments

roywiggins6y ago

The first one was Wired- not Vox- and the second one was claiming in the prior paragraph that "The platforms are immune from such suits under [CDA 230]. The law treats them as a neutral pass-through" which it doesn't. The law specifically says that platforms can moderate any content it deems objectionable.

Where does the CDA make a platform/publisher distinction? What is the definition of the difference, and where is it in the law?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

As Techdirt says, "This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law.". Are they wrong?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse