Post

Ari Cohn
@aricohn.com

Section 230 was based on the exact opposite understanding: that online services are not, and should not be forced to be "neutral channels"

Photoonist@photoonist.bsky.social

If it is “speech,” than why are such platforms except from liability? The argument for Section 230 was that the platforms are neutral channels, not publishers, which don’t assume responsibility for what goes through the platform. But as McLuhan observed “the medium is the message.”

20 reposts203 likes

jdrake3b.bsky.social
@jdrake3b.bsky.social

I would expect a platform to only remove some level of spam or inappropriate content. If they were to only remove one side then they are actively editing and, to me at least, no longer a platform, a base to be built upon, but an editor who might hold some reasonable liability for what remains. 1/2

Along for the ride 🌮🐷
@ridder.bsky.social

We want to allow "computer services" to remove objectionable content, without holding them responsible for being imperfect (missing some content.) Services also have their own 1st Am. rights to allow/disallow what they want. They are not merely "conduits." Section 230 is crafted to achieve that.

mrmonkeybusiness.bsky.social
@mrmonkeybusiness.bsky.social

Not an expert, but I believe that something can argue they're a "mere conduit" for information, which would give liability protections under US law. However, 230 explicitly grants liability protections to OCSs with the understanding that they will selectively edit content.