undefined | Better HN

0 pointsroywiggins6y ago0 comments

You may be thinking of the "CDA 230" nonsense that will not die, where people claim that companies can't moderate their customers because they'd be liable for what they post.

The opposite is true. CDA 230 makes it clear that companies can moderate their content without becoming responsible for it.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t...

0 comments

LegitShady6y ago

I've never heard anyone claim that companies can't moderate content without becoming responsible for it. I've heard people say that if publishers show themselves to be capable of censoring, then the legal protections should be rescinded and they should decide if they are a platform or a publisher.

Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?

roywigginsOP6y ago

The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this.

> If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity

and

> If Facebook is going to behave like a media provider, picking and choosing what viewpoints to represent, then it’s hard to argue that the company should still have immunity from the legal constraints that old-media organizations live with.

This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it.

Publishers being able to "censor" is the whole value proposition for having a publisher. You're paying for the NYT because it picks who to publish. Facebook has no special "platform" protections that anyone else doesn't get.

Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778

LegitShady6y ago

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

LegitShady6y ago

Are you sure you heard the argument correctly?

roywigginsOP6y ago

The techdirt article I linked cites examples of people doing exactly this.

> If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity

and

This is all nonsense. Old-media organizations are protected by CDA 230 just like everyone else: they can host third party content like user comments without being liable for it.

Many, many people seem to think that CDA 230 itself makes a distinction between "platforms" and "publishers". I even replied to someone here in this comment section:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610778

LegitShady6y ago

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?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse