undefined | Better HN

0 pointsswebs6y ago0 comments

Good, I hope this forces them to decide whether to be neutral platforms or publishers. They've been having their cake and eating it too for far too long.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

tzs6y ago· 1 in thread

If that's a reference to the protections under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it doesn't work that way. The whole point of section 230 was to say that being non-neutral does not subject a platform to liability for content supplied to that platform by users.

I'm not sure why, but a lot of people seem to think it is the opposite: you have to be neutral to be protected. There was a court case that ruled that way before section 230. Congress wrote 230 specifically to reverse that.

casefields6y ago

"The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.”

shadowgovt6y ago· 1 in thread

I hope they take Trump head-on, and declare an affirmative right to freedom of the press that does not violate safe-harbor policy.

anewdirection6y ago

Why? Thats the whole problem.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse