undefined | Better HN

0 pointspaul_f5y ago0 comments

This is not really true, in fact, in my opinion, it is the opposite of this. Services are given immunity if they don't moderate their content. Once they moderate it, they lose the protections. Facebook want to moderate content and receive immunity, and that is the crux of the problem.

0 comments

ryukafalz5y ago

You're mixing up section 230 with the situation prior to section 230. There were two important cases prior to its passage:

- Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., in which Prodigy was found to be liable due to their content moderation, and

- Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., in which CompuServe was held not liable for content, as they were unaware of it

Section 230 was in fact created to change this - to allow companies to moderate without making them liable for all of the actions of their users.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspaul_f5y ago0 comments

0 comments

ryukafalz5y ago

You're mixing up section 230 with the situation prior to section 230. There were two important cases prior to its passage:

- Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., in which Prodigy was found to be liable due to their content moderation, and

- Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., in which CompuServe was held not liable for content, as they were unaware of it

Section 230 was in fact created to change this - to allow companies to moderate without making them liable for all of the actions of their users.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse