Hacker Read

colejohnson66 · 2019-11-17 19:12:49

Why is this being downvoted? Doesn’t Section 230 apply to them if they don’t editorialize?

redwine11 | karma 18 | avg karma 3.6 · | 2021-01-21 16:17:34+00:00

Need to lose section 230 protection then. Can't be an editorial and have liability protection.

elpool2 | karma 425 | avg karma 3.08 · | 2019-11-18 01:39:08+00:00

Section 230 protects them from being liable for user generated content regardless of if they editorialize or not.

ww520 | karma 9957 | avg karma 2.49 · | 2020-05-28 21:54:35+00:00

Newspaper doesn’t enjoy the protection of Section 230.

throwaway202303 | karma 33 | avg karma 0.82 · | 2023-04-12 12:36:51

With section 230 protection because they are not an editorial news organization under the defined meaning

paxys | karma 66162 | avg karma 7.18 · | 2021-01-27 04:03:56+00:00

What makes you think publishers don’t have section 230 protections? Have you ever been to the opinion or comments sections on Fox News?

suff | karma 151 | avg karma 0.73 · | 2020-05-28 21:35:21

It would be, if the owner began editorializing the content, because the point at which they get involved, they lose neutrality, and therefore Section 230 immunity protection.

reissbaker | karma 3906 | avg karma 4.33 · | 2021-02-04 08:58:48

I assume you're getting downvoted at least in part because people disagree with you (I didn't downvote FWIW), but you're also factually wrong about Section 230 protections. Section 230 doesn't give blanket immunity to publishing illegal content: it only protects against civil violations, not criminal.

TAKEMYMONEY | karma 306 | avg karma 1.48 · | 2022-04-26 12:14:37

Yes Section 230 is mentioned in the article.

lgleason | karma 2706 | avg karma 4.02 · | 2024-02-27 15:49:33

If they want editorial discretion, then they are publishers...no section 230. If they want to be common carriers then they should not be making editorial decisions.

Ironically, if they had not taken steps as egregious and suspending the account of the current president of the US these laws would never have been considered by FL or TX.

reply

astrange | karma 14132 | avg karma 1.32 · | 2023-03-31 16:21:06

"Section 230 protections" have nothing to do with "editorial decisions"

wedn3sday | karma 734 | avg karma 3.53 · | 2021-08-19 21:15:08

How does section 230 not cover this? They're just a platform not a publisher right?

spaced-out | karma 1179 | avg karma 3.22 · | 2020-04-08 21:27:37

What does this have to do with Section 230?

2OEH8eoCRo0 | karma 10664 | avg karma 1.95 · | 2023-10-01 17:54:36

Section 230?

AgentME | karma 4810 | avg karma 2.59 · | 2020-10-26 19:19:22

Nothing about section 230 says that platforms have to publish what people say, or that they are unable to moderate or editorialize the content:

>This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.

reply

JohnFen | karma 30257 | avg karma 1.9 · | 2023-03-07 16:29:24

I don't think this is a thing that section 230 covers.

MinorTom | karma 63 | avg karma 0.94 · | 2023-03-10 15:05:35

No it doesn't. Section 230 was created to optionally allow them to moderate their content without being liable, whereas previously they would not have been allowed to moderate.

shrubble | karma 4311 | avg karma 3.35 · | 2023-12-12 10:06:26

Section 230 doesn't appear to be being enforced anyways...

Apocryphon | karma 19248 | avg karma 1.97 · | 2022-12-16 22:45:31

Doesn't that hinge upon Section 230?

microtherion | karma 8671 | avg karma 3.0 · | 2020-10-15 07:29:03+00:00

This is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does, and what its removal would mean.

reply