[gonehome]

If you remove that protection then the owners respond by doing zero moderation so they’ll be classified as distributors (since the alternative of moderating and being legally liable for all user content is not survivable).

230 was created to allow them to moderate their platforms. The context in my post (and the history described in that stratechery link) are critical to fully understand the issue.

What you’re suggesting would lead to the opposite of what you want - it would force them to not moderate at all.

Facebook being legally responsible for the random musings of two billion Facebook users and a magazine being responsible for the ads it runs are not equivalent.

[austincheney]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Regardless of whether you consider them distributors they still retain liability. The point of separating distribution from content creation, such as with the movie industry, is to shield the producer from liabilities associated with business relationships associated with distribution, such as movie theaters, and not end consumers. The end consumer can still sue the movie producer for content that is provably libel. In this regard of online content the distributors would retain liability as well as the creators of advertising content. The creators of advertising content are more challenging to identify though, since their intention is criminal.

I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.

> being legally liable for all user content is not survivable

That is the same argument for opposing slavery. Its a meritless argument.

At any rate the section is most certainly a legal shield both in practice and intent contrary to your claim:

> this section also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material

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

As another example one of my coworkers claims residence in California where he owns an agricultural services business. He supplies labor to orchards to pick nuts and fruit. It costs more for the farms to hire him than for them to hire and manage the field labor directly. The only reason they use him is to shield themselves from liabilities associated with labor law. He is their legal shield in the capacity of a distributor and retains liabilities associated with such.

[gonehome]

> “That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Regardless of whether you consider them distributors they still retain liability.”

This seems to contradict everything I’ve read, including the case law history, do you have something you’re basing this on beyond personal opinion? Given that you left out the relevant Good Samaritan portion in your previous comment, it feels like you’re arguing from a position of motivated reasoning. I think you’re wrong on this issue, but I’m happy to be shown otherwise.

> “I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.”

This just isn’t true: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...

As far as meritless argument, sites that allow user content could not exist if they were responsible for all of it. This is no way comparable to the moral hazard of slavery (which should not exist) so there’s no conflict.

I’m confused by your last point, I’m arguing that it is a legal shield. It’s just that the shield enables them to moderate.

[austincheney]

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._California which was the law in place before section 230 and inspired section 230 for online content submissions.

My last point is that the producer of physical goods does not need a legal shield, because they separate distribution from availability. A web server cannot separate distribution from availability and thus would retain liability for content regardless of its reclassification.