[busymom0]

> Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time.

And that's why newspapers are classified as publishers and therefore are able to be sued. "Platforms" like YouTube are can't be sued because they are supposed to act like platforms - which they are not. Right now YouTube is acting like publishers while using the advantage of being called a platform. This is the Communications Decency Act section 230.

[javagram]

Section 230 of the CDA was written expressly to give YouTube-like companies the right to do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

> One of the first legal challenges to Section 230 was the 1997 case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., in which a Federal court affirmed that the purpose of Section 230 as passed by Congress was "to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision".[8] Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material."

[. . .]

> Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49-53 (D.D.C. 1998).[71]

> The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Pretty sure you can't successfully sue a newspaper for printing an interview where misleading facts are promulgated either. They may dispute those facts or choose not to publish the interview, but if the newspaper prints the interview as is, you can't win a lawsuit over the interviewee having the data wrong. Likewise, a newspaper's editorial page is free to post incorrect opinions, or not, according to their editorial discretion. Are there any instances you're aware of where newspapers were successfully sued for incorrect reporting, except in the case of slander?

[olliej]

That would mean compelling them to host all content, including child pornography and calls to commit terrorism.

That is clearly nonsense.

The CDA doesn’t say “in order to not be liable you must host everything regardless of what it is” it allows you to host potentially anything that is uploaded without being considered directly liable for that (which would be far more censorious)

[perf1]

No Platdforms still have to delete illegal content and react to take down notices.

[olliej]

Ok, pornography then, that’s legal. Content that promotes terrorism is (to my understanding) not illegal, because that we shut down all those freedom loving “militias”.